Catching Up With Wes Anderson In His Delightful Moonrise Kingdom!

The Good: Decent performances, Interesting characters, Good direction
The Bad: Simplistic plot, Light on character development
The Basics: I finally take in Moonrise Kingdom, which moved Wes Anderson out of his repetitive slump!


Over the years, I have inadvertently become a fan of the works of a couple of different writer/directors. Unlike the most literal fans ("fanatics"), I have retained the ability to be discriminatory about the works of even my favorite writer/directors. So, I do not universally praise the works of Terry Gilliam, P.T. Anderson or The Wachowski Siblings. Each has had films that are brilliant and some that are downright unwatchable. Because I started my appreciation of the works of Wes Anderson with The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!), I hardly suspected he would become one of my favorite writer/directors. The Royal Tenenbaums is brilliant, but his follow-ups The Life Acquatic With Steve Zissou (reviewed here!) and The Darjeeling Limited (reviewed here!) were essentially rehashings of that film in mood and cast (and, even, direction).

With his latest film reinvigorating my love of his works, I have been eagerly going back to some of the Wes Anderson films I missed after I more or less gave up on him. After watching Moonrise Kingdom, I wish I had gone back sooner! Moonrise Kingdom is almost everything one has come to love and expect from a Wes Anderson film. The movie is packed with awkward moments, somewhat off-putting characters, actors being used in quirky ways and (to a lesser extent) impressive direction with an emphasis on the use of color. Moonrise Kingdom might not have the familiar sense of visual style one expects from a Wes Anderson film - after the opening credits sequence that is - but narratively, it is very much a typical Wes Anderson film . . . without feeling like the writer/director is simply rehashing his prior works.

In the summer of 1965, on the New England island of New Penzance is days away from being hit by a significant storm, the residents are shocked by two young people running away. The New Penzance Khaki Scout camp is put in an uproar when the least-liked camper, orphan Sam, abruptly resigns from the Scouts and runs off. Miles away, Suzy Bishop abandons her lawyer parents and three younger brothers to meet Sam and run away with him.

After an explanation of how Sam and Suzy met the year prior at the Island's church play and they became pen pals, the film follows the story of where the two children run off to and the attempts by both the Khaki Scouts and the island police to recover the children. Sam is pursued by his fellow Khaki Scouts, Scout Master Ward (who is dismayed when Sam's foster family does not want him back) and Captain Sharp, the dim police officer who has a lingering affection for Mrs. Bishop. Mr. and Mrs. Bishop are pretty much estranged and not really in love - their pillow talk is about their respective caseloads - have Sharp hunting their Suzy. Sam and Suzy defend themselves from the Khaki Scout troop and make it to an inlet where they spend a romantic night before they are captured the next morning. But when one of the Khaki Scouts realizes they troop has been cruel to Sam without cause, the kids decide to spring the young lovers and give them a chance at happiness.

Moonrise Kingdom has, from its outset, the potential to be virtually any kind of movie. The title and opening set the film up for a potential cinematic reworking of Bridge To Terabithia. The longer the film went on, the more I had hopes that the movie would be about the two kids and their falling in love and creating their own little paradise at the inlet. That hope, however, got quickly shattered with the capture of Suzy and Sam and the emphasis on keeping Moonrise Kingdom a classic chase story.

Because of its emphasis on plot and the reversals that naturally come from having a chase story, the characters in Moonrise Kingdom hardly grow or develop. Instead, Sam and Suzy grow to accept one another and share an intriguing first love that is based a lot on simply accepting the other for who they are. But most of their time is spent simply running and having four or five scenes where they simply talk. Many of those scenes are not about sharing common interests, they are about fleshing out each character. The chase gives Sam and Suzy shared conflict, but it does little to actually bond them more (they are about as affectionate with one another at the outset as they are at the end).

As always, Wes Anderson does an exceptional job with the film's casting of a decent blend of established actors and some new talents. Sam is played by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward erupts on screen as Suzy, with a stare that could melt glass. Beyond that, one is almost surprised Wes Anderson films require a casting manager; Anderson tends to use several actors in virtually all of his works and Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman all make appearances in Moonrise Kingdom. Bruce Willis is utilized well in Moonrise Kingdom as Captain Sharp. Given how Willis can play calculating and able exceptionally well, watching him as a character who is a virtual moron is a feat!

The film is ruled by Gilman and Hayward and while their characters are hardly connected by deep and binding character traits, the performers have great, if awkward, on-screen chemistry! Gilman and Hayward have great stares and their characters share intensity that they play incredibly well.

But, Moonrise Kingdom sticks with a chase caper more than a heartfelt exploration of young love and that diminishes the magic of the film. While Wes Anderson does an excellent job of making an engaging story, the viewer is left feeling like the movie had so much more potential than was executed.

For other works with Frances McDormand, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Burn After Reading
Friends With Money
Aeon Flux
Something's Gotta Give
City By The Sea
Almost Famous
Wonder Boys
Fargo
Miller’s Crossing

6.5/10

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.
| | |

Wes Anderson Creates The Best Slapstick Comedy Of All Time With The Grand Budapest Hotel!

The Good: Very funny, Wonderful acting, Engaging plot and characters, Impressive direction
The Bad: Needlessly complicated narrative technique, A number of the characters do not get developed due to the size of the cast
The Basics: Rightfully being called one of the best films of 2014, The Grand Budapest Hotel restores the reputation of Wes Anderson by creating an entertaining and enduring film!


When The Grand Budapest Hotel started to rack up award nominations this award’s season, I had the distinct feeling that the film was being treated as something of a “lifetime achievement award” for writer-director Wes Anderson. After all, Wes Anderson has made some masterful films, but after peaking with The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!), the argument can be pretty easily made that he has simply been rehashing and reworking that movie for at least his two subsequent works - The Life Aquatic Of With Steve Zissou (reviewed here!) and The Darjeeling Limited (reviewed here!). The only Wes Anderson film I have not seen is Moonrise Kingdom and my failure to give it attention was the result of disillusionment following his post-The Royal Tenenbaums films.

So, my expectations were low when I sat down to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel. In fact, my viewing The Grand Budapest Hotel was more an obligatory viewing due to my desire to watch all of the Best Picture Oscar nominees this year. So, when I come out singing the praises of The Grand Budapest Hotel and director Wes Anderson, it is because the film is truly that good. With Anderson’s distinctive sense of style and color and a cast made up mostly of alumni from his prior works, Anderson was given the seemingly daunting task of creating something new and memorable with The Grand Budapest Hotel. He, and his cast and production team, succeeded.

An author sits down and tells the story of his younger self having the story of Zubrowska’s famed Grand Budapest Hotel narrated to him. Moustafa tells the story of how, as a boy, he was a Lobby Boy at the Grand Budapest Hotel during the turbulent time when it was switching owners. The young Lobby Boy Zero befriends the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, M. Gustave. Gustave is a smart, efficient man who has been bedding the exceptionally wealthy Madame D. Madame D. dies abruptly and Gustave goes to her estate where he is surprisingly willed the famous painting Boy With Apple.

The priceless painting is coveted by Madame D.’s sons Dimitri and Jopling, as well as her three daughters. Gustave is framed by one of Madame D.’s servants as the man who killed Madame D. and he begins his run from the law. Unfortunately, he runs pretty much right away into the arms of Inspector Henckels, who has Gustave imprisoned. Gustave must rely upon the efforts of Zero to rescue him so they can sell the painting and live their lives. But Jopling is a homicidal maniac intent upon finding Gustave and his hunt starts to cut a swath of death through Zubrowska toward Gustave, Zero, and Zero’s fiancé, Agatha.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially a screwball comedy and Wes Anderson goes to great lengths to give the film a retro feel and sense of melodrama. What makes The Grand Budapest Hotel work so well is that Anderson mixes things like special effect “skips” and exaggerated movements with more contemporary color palates and incredible performances by some of the best actors working today. With such an extensive cast, Anderson is unable to use them all well; Tom Wilkinson’s part in The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially a cameo where he is not given the chance to plumb his performing depths. Similarly, Jude Law’s performance as the younger version of Wilkinson’s author character only has him on screen long enough to get the viewer into the narrative of M. Gustave and Zero, as opposed to forcing him to play anything impressive.

The story of The Grand Budapest Hotel is an engaging chase story that feels classic, but has a contemporary level of dialogue. Ralph Fiennes swears his way through The Grand Budapest Hotel and Willem Dafoe’s psychopathic Jopling is chilling in a way that early films would not have dared. In the chase, Gustave becomes a likable protagonist, as does Zero. Zero is given enough backstory to make him compelling – even if the love story of Zero and Agatha is somewhat contrived (it plays into a line about A to Z) and simple.

The performances in The Grand Budapest Hotel are appropriately exceptional. Jeff Goldblum is virtually unrecognizable as the lawyer Kovacs and Adrien Brody is similarly chameleonic as Dmitri. Tilda Swinton’s brief appearance on screen proves that The Grand Budapest Hotel should win a bevy of make-up awards. Even Saoirse Ronan gives a career high performance – her time on screen shows more range and genuine emotion than she did in the entirety of The Host (reviewed here!).

The surprise is how well Tony Revolori plays off Ralph Fiennes. Revolori is given a part that could easily be relegated to hapless sidekick, but in key moments, he steels his eyes and holds his own on screen with Fiennes. Revolori has on-screen panache that makes Zero distinct and the logical antecedent to F. Murray Abraham’s incarnation of the character.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of the few films in recent memory that ought to be seen and experienced as opposed to discussed. It is funny, stylish and original enough to decimate any assertion that its nominations are more for Anderson and his body of work than this specific film!

For other films with intriguing narrative techniques, please visit my reviews of:
Stranger Than Fiction
Memento
Adaptation.

9/10

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 Oscar Nomination Day: Birdman!

The Good: Great acting, Moments of plot and character
The Bad: Ending guts the realism of the film.
The Basics: Birdman is not the worst nominee for Best Picture, but the hype surrounding the indie film seems to be working more than the film itself.


One of the nice things about Awards Season is that it encourages me to watch any number of films that I did not get around to watching the rest of the year. As Oscar Nominations have been released today and I go through the lists, I find that I am woefully unprepared for this year’s Awards Season. In fact, for someone with a Best Picture Project (check that out here!), which has me watching the Best Picture Oscar winner each year, I find myself terribly out of step this year. Of the eight Oscar Nominees for Best Picture, I had only seen one before today! In a year when cinema was pretty crappy, I should not be surprised that only one of the films nominated for Best Picture was released outside of Oscar Pandering season. But, while watching the Golden Globe presentation on Sunday, the movie that seemed most like one I might enjoy watching was Birdman.

Birdman seems, in many ways, tailor-made to its lead, Michael Keaton. Keaton’s greatest commercial popularity came when he appeared in Tim Burton’s Batman (reviewed here!) and Batman Returns (reviewed here!). While he had many other career peaks and valleys, his box office cache was highest at that time in his career. So now, more than twenty-five years later, it is easy for The Industry and moviegoers to look at the former a-lister and sarcastically call him “washed-up” or a “has been” (William Shatner has a great song on the subject!). But, Birdman does a good job of illustrating that anyone who has been has the chance to be (in the public eye) again.

A telekinetic actor who once starred in the popular Birdman movie franchise, based upon a comic book, is now attempting to launch a theatrical play. Days before the first preview, Riggan Thomson smacks Ralph, knocking him out to get the terrible actor out of the role that Riggan originated on screen. After a round of bad press, while Ralph threatens to sue the production, Riggan realizes that the “dream actor” he wants to materialize is not going to appear. Leslie, the female lead of the play, gets actor Mike Shiner to fill in for the lead. Shiner brings real talent and some creative vision to the project, despite challenging what Riggan wrote.

When the preview goes terribly, because Mike freaks out midway through, Riggan sees that his big chance to reclaim the spotlight is slipping away. His erratic girlfriend tells Riggan he is pregnant, his new star is drunk, and Riggan’s daughter, Sam, is struggling with her sobriety (and not just leaping into bed with Mike). With theater critic Tabitha Dickinson’s New York Times review hanging over their head, Riggan and Mike prepare for the second preview. While the second preview goes vastly better than the first (despite a hiccup with Mike having an erection). But as the debut of the play looms, Riggan’s personal life spirals out of control – in real life and in his own head.

Birdman is one of those films that is almost entirely undone by its last few minutes. I like a good film with a reversal, like Brazil (reviewed here!), but so many films are diminished by the reversal; Birdman is one such film. Despite Birdman peppering clues to the end at the beginning (Riggan is not actually telekinetic, for example), the cyclical “death dream”y nature of the film robs the movie of its reality and punch.

For much of the film, Birdman captivates the audience as the story of a man who is making one last gambit for success in the public eye, while plagued by the voices of self-doubt and criticism in his own head. While there might me multiple interpretations to the film, the seeds peppered throughout – and are supported by the end – lead to a climax that guts the real-world sensibilities from the movie, in favor of an end that is both more and less fantastical. Riggan is not endowed with super powers, he is merely delusional at times (fantastic is robbed in favor of reality); the harsh life turns that have led Riggan to where he is now are called into question by the nature of the “vision” he has been experiencing (the harsh reality is, potentially, just an elaborate mental vision – a fantasy!). Either way, the intimacy of the film is diminished by sidestories, like the truth or dare game Sam and Mike play – which seems odd in a vision of Riggan’s.

While not overwhelmingly plagued by problems, Birdman has one serious casting issue and that is Edward Norton. Norton is great as Mike; he takes the role of the cocky, established Hollywood actor and makes it work masterfully. The problem is that Birdman makes multiple allusions to The Avengers (reviewed here!) and the Marvel Cinematic Universe . . . of which Edward Norton is a part. In the film Birdman, the “Birdman” franchise is a thinly veiled allusion to Michael Keaton’s participation in the cinematic Batman franchise. In Riggan’s head, his past role mocks The Avengers as living in the shadow of Birdman; he paved the way for them. There is a logical fallout, then, for denying Batman, acknowledging the current Marvel Movie phenomenon . . . and then using one of the actors from that in a role that isn’t him. In other words, it’s hard to have lines poking at Robert Downey Jr. and having Riggan surprised that Jeremy Renner ended up in a cape (metaphorically), but then have Edward Norton on screen as someone who is not Edward Norton.

On the acting front, Birdman succeeds. Never one who has been a fan of Naomi Watts (on screen, not in real life – I’m sure she is a wonderful person, but outside Mulholland Drive I can’t think of a role she’s played where I’ve been truly impressed), I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in Birdman. Watts gives a good supporting role in the form of Lesley, an actress on the verge (potentially) of a breakout. Watts is credible as a young actress and she plays off Norton incredibly well. Her ability to emote in Birdman was more impressive than Emma Stone delivering a quality tirade or Michael Keaton playing an actor who is struggling to find his spotlight again.

That said, Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton and even Zach Galifianakis (in one of his straightest, most understated supporting roles yet!) are all good in Birdman. Despite my issues with the film’s “left turn” near the end, the performances are wonderful and create a very strong sense of character and time and place. It is easy to get immersed in the film.

Unfortunately, Birdman is a tough place to want to get immersed, at least more than once. For those expecting an incredibly original tale of an actor fighting for one last chance, one last role, there is a bit too much Black Swan (reviewed here!), not enough American Dreamz (reviewed here!).

[As winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of my Best Picture Project! Check it out!)

For other films that have surreal elements, please check out my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Across The Universe
The Voices

6/10

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.
| | |

Desperately Average Super Hero Films Work Up To An Impressive Film With Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled

The Good: The Avengers, Some decent performances, Blu-Ray bonus features
The Bad: Exceptionally repetitive plots, Character arcs are often repetitive as well
The Basics: The six-film Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled boxed set eliminates some of the fat from the first few serialized Marvel universe movies nevertheless presents in one place the films building up to and including The Avengers.


As Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!) continues its powerhouse run at the box office, it is fun to look back at how the film came to be. The films that led up to Iron Man 3 - and much more importantly, its cinematic predecessor The Avengers - have been collected on Blu-Ray in a new boxed set called the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled. The Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled is six of the first seven Marvel Universe films that were loosely connected by background threads pertaining to the Avengers Initiative. In other words, it is the Marvel Universe without the X-Men franchise, The Fantastic Four or Spider-Man (or, for that matter, the vigilante Daredevil or the supernatural-based Marvel characters like Ghost Rider).

The boxed set of Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled does not include the film Hulk, which is somewhat ironic because it does include its sequel. The ten disc set, which is chock full of bonus features and an entire exclusive bonus disc that looks at the assembled films as a film franchise. The films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled boxed set includes:
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Avengers

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled has five movies that are only loosely tied to one another and then is paid off with a film that unites the protagonists from the prior four films. For those who have not seen them, the basic ideas behind the films are:

Iron Man has billionaire Tony Stark getting attacked and held hostage overseas. While being held hostage, he puts together a small device that keeps shrapnel from piercing his heart and he uses it to power a primitive suit of armor that facilitates his escape. Stark’s return to the United States and the industry of weapons engineering is met with mixed results. His loyal assistant, Pepper Potts, is thrilled he is alive, but his former mentor is actually dismayed in that Stark is still alive given that he has taken control over Stark Industries in Tony’s absence. Stark’s new pacifism and obsession with refining his armor to act as something of a one-man world peace force, upsets Stone and causes Tony’s former mentor to create a suit of his own to take on his protégé!

The Incredible Hulk finds Dr. Bruce Banner hiding out, having tried to keep his alter-ego, the Hulk, under control for years. He is hunted by a military-industrial complex that is determined to bring him in. In that pursuit, a villainous leader gives a seasoned officer a serum that creates another Hulk-like creature (the Abomination), who begins to lay waste, which requires the Hulk to intervene to save lives.

Iron Man 2 continues Tony Stark’s story after his revelation that he is Iron Man. With Congress looking to assimilate Stark’s technology while he resists, Stark fights two battles: one against the corporate leader of Hammer weapons and the other, in his suit, against the Russian villain Whiplash, who rises up to get revenge on Stark for stealing the technology his father developed.

In Thor the Norse God of Thunder coming to Earth as an outcast after his brother, Loki, discredits him on the astral planes. With Thor’s father in a coma, Thor ends up on Earth where he works to redeem himself and comes to care about the humans.

There is a trip to the past with Captain America: The First Avenger. During World War II, Steve Rogers is a weak young man who nevertheless wants to join the war effort to go to fight the Nazis. Instead, he is inducted into the super soldier program and given incredible strength, endurance and tactical ability. After a stint as a publicity tool for the U.S. military, Rogers as Captain America goes to free American prisoners of war and stop the evil HYDRA scientists who are threatening to unlock the massive power of a device from the astral planes, the tesseract.

The Tesseract pops back up as the object of concern in The Avengers. Loki has been tasked by a powerful alien being with recovering the Tesseract from Earth and he is ready to use it to wipe out humanity. To respond to the menace of Loki and the army he is ready to bring through a wormhole to lay waste to Earth (starting in New York City), Nick Fury – after an attack on a S.H.I.E.L.D. laboratory – works to bring together Earth’s greatest heroes to respond to the threat Loki represents.

All six films follow a similar basic format with the origin story of the super hero and the villain and the hero rising to stop them. These are all, in the end, “kill the villain” type films. Iron Man 2 has no time needed to establish Iron Man, but uses the time that these type movies to establish the heroes to remind the viewers who Iron Man and Tony Stark are and the villains are more developed in the movie. But, like the plots, the characters all have pretty obvious and repetitive journeys where, in each film, to defeat their custom villain, they must learn a Very Important Lesson about themselves.

While the films might lack a great resonance of character issues and development, the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled managed to get some pretty wonderful actors. The principle actors in this saga – Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Edward Norton (Bruce Banner – for The Incredible Hulk), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner – for The Avengers), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Chris Evans (Captain America), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), and Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson) are wonderful and add and emotional resonance and realism to the movies that makes them feel grand and sophisticated beyond the simple plots and characters they portray. The supporting actors – Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, William Hurt, and Liv Tyler – lend a professionalism to a movie series that could seem campy or utterly unrealistic without their gravitas.

Ultimately, the movies in Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled are entertaining popcorn movies, but seeing them together in this set begins to reiterate the idea that some of the super heroes in the Marvel Universe are hardly all that special. These stories shake up the super powers and specific plots, but are in many ways the same essential story told six ways.

For similar boxed sets, please visit my reviews of:
The Star Trek Cinematic Boxed Set
The Lord Of The Rings
The Star Wars Trilogy

5/10

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.
| | |

Illusions Of Originality, Realities Of Disappointment: The Illusionist

The Good: Moments of plot, Moments of acting, Special effects
The Bad: Light on character, Predictable, Derivative, Inconsistent accents
The Basics: In The Illusionist, which is filmed big, the viewer waits for something remarkable and instead finds something exceptionally common.


It was not my idea to watch The Illusionist, but out of the choices I was presented, it seemed like the best option of the bunch. Having now watched it, I wonder what I was missing by not seeing Quills. The Illusionist suffers from a death of a thousand cuts, but fundamentally it was unworthy of recommendation for its lack of originality. Neil Burger essentially rewrites The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) as a love story and it's fairly blah.

Eisenheim, a young illusionist, has exceptional talent. As a child he had a brief infatuation with Sophie, a girl of a better station in life. Separated by finances and social standing, Sophie and Eisenheim separate and are reunited years later in Vienna where they rekindle their love. Sophie, unfortunately, is soon to be wed to the Crown Prince Leopold who is the jealous type. When Sophie is killed, Eisenheim's illusions seem to conjure her and Inspector Uhl is caught between righting a murder and the obligations of protecting the monarchy.

Now the thing is, I respect some of the bigger actors in The Illusionist. Rufus Sewell, who plays the Crown Prince Leopold, was amazing in Dark City (reviewed here!) Edward Norton was fabulous in The 25th Hour (reviewed here!). Unfortunately, The Illusionist does not make use of most of the acting talents in the movie. Edward Norton and Jessica Biel (Sophie) fail to carry their accents, making many of the moments of their performances worthy of wincing. Rufus Sewell is outfitted with the most ridiculous looking mustache seen in film since . . . well, possibly ever.

The only actor who stood out for me was Paul Giamatti. Giamatti gained my attention for his role as the artistic buffoon in Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) where I had the sense he was being underused. Here Giamatti shines with an intellectual performance that rightfully earns him second billing. Giamatti is convincing as Uhl and his conflict, that of morality vs. preservation of State is the only truly original aspect of The Illusionist. He steals every scene he is in.

The other noteworthy aspect of The Illusionist is the quality of the special effects. The Illusionist utilizes state of the art special effects and there is no sense of that in the film. That is to say, we never truly feel like we are watching a special effects movie. Instead, this has the feel of watching an actual magic show, with all of the clever insinuations of bending reality and misdirection that comes with that.

Unfortunately, the one performance and the effects are not enough to save The Illusionist. Its pacing is way off, with a strong beginning that quickly degenerates into a series of plodding events that make the viewer wish we were back at the beginning already. The film is unnaturally slow and it is disturbing to watch the pace of the movie abruptly hit the breaks. I was mildly surprised to see the movie was 110 minutes; the film had the feel of being barely 90 minutes with much of the time being spent with filler to get it up to the minimum recommended length. In short, what Burger might have intended to use to set mood merely delays the inevitable.

Sadly, the romance in The Illusionist is nothing to write home about. There is no chemistry between Biel and Norton and less between Biel and Sewell. Instead, we are subjected to generally passionless characters acting or reacting with the supposed motivations of love and jealousy that the viewer never feels is a serious motivation for any of the characters involved.

And there are nitpicky details, which are almost always a problem in movies that hinge on a reversal like the one required to end The Illusionist. So, for example, Inspector Uhl returns to where he believes Sophie was killed some time after her murder and finds a clue. He finds the clue in the hay in a stable. Unless these are the cleanest horses in history, given that some time has passed, one would think the hay would have been changed. This is just one of the things that leaps instantly into my mind.
More problematic are the character aspects and how the actors attempt and surrender accents at various points in the movie. Regardless of the minutiae, the resolution to The Illusionist is terrible and it boggles my mind how the movie was made given that the end is such an obvious rip-off of The Usual Suspects, which is a vastly superior film.

For other films with magic as a component, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Death Defying Acts
The Last Airbender
The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

4.5/10

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

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

Oscar Pandering Season Comes Early With Pride And Glory This Year's Latest Police Epic.

The Good: Acting
The Bad: BOOM MIKE!, Stale plot, Nonsensical character elements, Obvious stereotypes.
The Basics: Predictable, obvious and riddled with problems a first-year film student knows to avoid, Pride And Glory flops when it could have coasted by as average.


This is entirely a retro-review. Written from an advanced screening back in 2008, I was floored when the film – days before it was set to be released – was plagued with technical problems. As I did not enjoy the movie, I have not since gone back to re-view it. So, I opted to keep the original language – all of it – for the transfer of the review to my blog. Enjoy!

Usually, right before the Oscar nominations are released, there will be a rush of movies put out that are the qualitative best films the studio feels they have to offer. These are the movies with the big stars doing dramatic things and trying to impress the nominating committees to win the big awards. This season is usually later in the year and it never fails to amuse me how most of the Summer Blockbusters are almost always automatically disqualified from the running simply because they arrive outside the rather short memory span of the nominators.

I mention this as preface to my review of Pride And Glory because as part of the drive to get nominated for Oscars, there is usually at least one big police epic and this year, it certainly appears that this is trying to fill that niche. Let's face it, Edward Norton was not going to be nominated for any acting awards for The Incredible Hulk (reviewed here!). So, he's here with Collin Farrell doing their best to prove their acting worth to get the nominations both they and the film want. It's a bit early, but Pride And Glory has all of the elements that nominators seem to look for when it comes to considering people and films for nominations.

Ray, Francis, and Jimmy are three brothers (Jimmy is a brother-in-law) working in the NYPD under their father, Francis Sr. when four officers go into a drug kingpin's apartment and are shot and killed. Francis Sr. begs Ray to come off Missing Persons and spearhead the investigation, an investigation that quickly becomes a hunt of Angel Tezo, the drug lord whose apartment was being raided when the officers were killed. Ray enters the investigation to do right and put to rest the demons of his past and finding Tezo and avenging the deaths of the officers seems a reasonable way to do that.

Jimmy has his own reasons for wanting to find Tezo; as part of a quartet of corrupt cops, Jimmy and his three partners dispose of Tezo's getaway car and mull over the deal they have made with a rival druglord to move product on their own. In the process of both the law and the lawless law officers hunting Tezo, there is another shooting while three officers look into a misparked car. As Ray's investigation progresses, it gets him closer to Jimmy's corruption and Francis Junior's complicity and puts his own life in serious jeopardy.

I did not set out to pan Pride And Glory. Indeed, I like a good cop story as much as virtually every other American. Pride And Glory started out as a pathetically average cop story. The allegiances were known early on, so like recent Best Picture winner The Departed (reviewed here!), this is more a story about the process of one protagonist getting to the place the audience is from the second scene. We're watching Ray piece together everything to get to Jimmy's corruption while we watch Jimmy ordering him men to do heinous things.

Why, then, is Pride And Glory rated so lowly by me and I am baffled by the praise heaped upon it by the "professional" reviewers? Well, it's pretty obvious when you see the movie, at least the print I saw tonight. The potential weakness of seeing a movie through the studio at premiere screenings is that when they learn of a problem a few days before the wide release of a film, they are sometimes able to fix it. In the case of Pride And Glory, they've got a lot of work to do before this Friday. Why?

The boom is visible. A lot. In key scenes, the microphone is seen bopping around at the top of the screen. It's not a subtle thing, either; it moves, it shakes, it's there. It's there and the first time I noticed it, I was surprised, made a note and brushed it off. By its tenth appearance, I was thinking a boom operator and an editor ought to be fired. In key scenes where emotional and crucial dialogue is being given, all eyes in the theater were drawn to the moving boom and mike and people began laughing. Sadly, the most fun we had tonight at Pride And Glory was not, in fact, the engaging story (it wasn't), but rather "spot the mike!" It is ridiculous that any prints went out like this and if it's not fixed, anyone who rates this five stars was simply not paying attention. I estimate at tonight's showing the boom and/or microphone was visible in approximately 10% of the shots. That's pathetic and director Gavin O'Connor should be mortified that anyone saw the movie looking as shabby as it did.

Then again, director and co-writer O'Connor has enough to be mortified about as far as the script goes (though there he can share the blame with co-writer Joe Carnahan) to be sweating the crappy editing of his movie. O'Connor and Carnahan ask the viewer to swallow one too many ridiculous conceits and rather than go through the entire laundry list of them, I'm just going to jump to the most grievous. These two writers ask the viewer to believe that one honorable cop and one mostly-good career cop whose dying wife begs him to be a man and do the right thing would let their sister go to bed the night they become certain their brother-in-law is a murderous creep with that man. Come ON! But Francis Jr. decides to take a night to sleep on it, AFTER Jimmy is pretty much outed by Ray. So, in addition to being two startlingly lousy cops, Ray and Francis Jr. pretty much fall down as being complete losers when it comes to being a brother or husband.

This is not a nitpicky thing. I mean, you don't even have to like your sister all that much to not want her in bed with a murderer who frames you!

Pride And Glory is filled with a lot of swearing (which helps us know right off the bat who the bad guys are), a requisite amount of blood and all sorts of brutality. Jimmy is not a nice guy and throughout the movie, as his agendas become more and more clear, he and his associates do what they feel they need to in order to stay one step ahead of Ray. The problem here, though, comes near the resolution when character is sacrificed for yet another conceit; the fistfight between two cops.

In other words, if you've seen it in a police drama before, it's in Pride And Glory. In fact, there is little in the way of the title attributes in the film: no one seems particularly proud of being a police officer in this and there is certainly no glory in it either. What there is is a boom mike, hovering dangerously low in oh so many frames, eliminating a whole lot of credibility from the movie. There is also a weird editing technique in the police funeral; a color shift that makes the American flag appear to have green stripes and I'm not sure what the point of that was, to be honest.

I was quite glad I took Spanish back in high school as there are no subtitles in the scenes where Ray interrogates Spanish-speaking witnesses. Finally, Ray's broken marriage kills time that did not need to be there. While watching Pride And Glory, I was detached from it enough to realize that the allusions to Ray's soon-to-be ex-wife worked equally well without the scene and the shot that were in the film that showed her.

This leaves one asking what did Pride And Glory do right? Well, the Tierney family Christmas dinner has a pretty decent and realistic family dynamic. Sure, Francis Sr. is an aging police administrator and therefore something of a lush, but when he drunkenly talks about his children, it makes quite clear the order of the kids and how they ended up the way they did. Even seeing the way Francis Sr. treats his wife explains why Megan would be with Jimmy.

What Pride And Glory does have is the acting, though the billing is way off. Collin Farrell gets top billing and I'm unsure why; his performance is pretty straightforward and remarkably monolithic. Actually, he's doing a pretty decent resurrection of Bullseye, his character from Daredevil (reviewed here!), though slightly less over-the-top . . . for the most part.

I do understand why Noah Emmerich is given billing well below Farrell; he's not a draw. He is, however, an impressive actor, at least in the role of Francis Jr. If he's not nominated for Best Supporting Actor, the nominators seriously missed their mark. Emmerich has a great physical sense to him that allows him to telegraph his character's emotions perfectly, especially in the film's final scenes when he plays Junior with real resolve.

But it is Edward Norton who carries much of Pride And Glory and while his character is disturbingly conflicted at points, Norton sells him well. Norton is able to play both low-key and intense and the moment he begins to portray Ray as a detective piecing things together, he has complete credibility. In other words, when Ray begins asking questions and deducing things, Norton seems completely like a detective without any hint of any of his lesser roles in his portrayal of Ray.

On DVD, many of the technical faults are fixed, but there are still the huge character problems in the film that make it difficult to watch and respect. There is a commentary track and behind-the-scenes featurettes, none of which add anything of significance to the film.

But ultimately, Pride And Glory is a movie that needs some serious fixes and it should not be out in the marketplace in its current state and it certainly doesn't deserve any real consideration in this form either.

For other works with Noah Emmerich, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Super 8
The Walking Dead - Season 1
The Truman Show

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2009, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Frida Is The Portrait Of An Amazing Artist - Chicago Got Lucky!

The Good: Excellent acting, Directing, Visual style, Character
The Bad: Important gaps in character
The Basics: The biography of Frida Kahlo is excellently portrayed by Selma Hayek with amazing direction and directoral vision.


For a long time after American Beauty won the Best Picture Oscar, I waited for a movie that actually was the best picture of the year to win. That Gladiator won was disgusting to me, that A Beautiful Mind won was sad - though predictable - and that Chicago won was so disappointing as to not even be worth mentioning. Whenever I complain about the movie that actually won the Best Picture, I try to provide at least two films I know are better than whatever won. Worthy of usurping Chicago was The Two Towers and now, I would make an argument for Frida.

Frida tells the story of little-known Mexican painter Frida Kahlo. Kahlo's genius as an artist starts as a young woman. When she is nearly killed in a trolley accident, she recovers by getting the attention of visiting artist Diego Rivera. Kahlo and Rivera begin a tumultuous relationship that is complicated by Rivera's infidelity, Kahlo's health problems and the pair's political philosophies and artistic integrity. As Marxists, Kahlo and Rivera find themselves the subject of controversy abroad and their lives, though difficult, are inextricably bound together.

The magic of Frida is that it manages to tell the story of a strong woman without being overbearing. Instead, Kahlo is portrayed as an eminently practical woman who is simply following her dreams. Without trying to be, Frida comes across as courageous and the most admirable type of woman; one who does what she wants, is bound only by her own integrity and becomes actualized despite adversity.

That Frida is based on a real person or attempts to accurately portray the life of Frida Kahlo, the historic persona, makes the movie no less enjoyable. The reason this film succeeds is that it never feels like a biography, nor like it is trying to glorify Kahlo. Instead, director Julie Taymor creates a film that is visually stunning and moves at a fairly fast pace. Taymor's use of color, especially, is magnificent. There is great contrast throughout the movie between the inorganic blues and bright reds and the browns and tans of the desert environment. Taymor has an eye for color that mirror's Kahlo's own. Taymor's film ultimately comes across as an extended painting, incorporating many of Kahlo's.

Selma Hayek brings Kahlo to life and it is no surprise to watch all of the DVD extras to discover that Hayek fought long and hard to get the movie made. As Kahlo was a personal hero of Hayek, her portrayal of Kahlo comes from a personal history of great research, making this perhaps the definitive biography of Frida Kahlo. Hayek does more than bring a great figure and a monobrow to the role; she moves with a grace and profound sense of reclusive dignity that comes across in all of Kahlo's self-portraits. Watching this movie, it becomes inconceivable that anyone else could portray Kahlo.

Hayek's magnificent performance - and she was robbed for the Best Actress awards - is supported by an equally wonderful performance by Alfred Molina as Diego Rivera. Molina plays Rivera as a spirited individual, much like Ruben Blades did in Cradle Will Rock. Their performances differ, though, as Molina makes River much less flamboyant and more reluctant about his own sense of greatness. With the emphasis on Kahlo in Frida, Molina's Rivera lives much more in his wife's shadow, acknowledging the superiority of Kahlo's work. Never does Molina's Rivera seem selfish about this fact, making his performance even more wrenching.

The supporting cast of Frida is highlighted by Roger Rees, who plays Frida's father, Guillermo. Rees - perhaps best known as Robin Coldcort on Cheers - does an amazing job at portraying one of the most influential people in Kahlo's formative process. Rees creates a sympathetic and inwardly strong character that makes it clear how Frida would develop into such a headstrong person. It becomes almost inconceivable, then, that Frida would show the death of Kahlo's mother, but not Guillermo.

In fact, this omission is one of the few problems with this otherwise truly great film. So many other important facets of Frida Kahlo's character are addressed, most notably, her ability to stay with an unfaithful man like Diego Rivera, that the absence of her father's death becomes difficult to swallow. Still, Frida manages to explore a complex and vivacious individual. Kahlo's passion and powerful sexuality flow through her life and this movie.

Who will enjoy Frida? Anyone with any taste. It's better than Chicago. Easily. The characters are compelling, strengthened by a strong sense of realism. And while all of the characters seem very genuine, the film is so visually complex that it never seems ordinary. The people behave like real people presented through an artistic lens that immediately engages the viewer without any cheap tricks like ridiculous songs and flashy sexuality. Why didn't Frida win Best Picture? Why wasn't it even nominated? It certainly wasn't for the quality of the cast, the direction or the characters. Perhaps some mysteries of taste will never be solved.

Fortunately, Frida exists to remind us that style and substance can blend and that quality need not lack flair.

For other works featuring Salma Hayek, be sure to visit my reviews of:
30 Rock - Season Three
Across The Universe
Dogma

9/10

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

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

An Amazing Cast With Character Sells Us Long Before The 25th Hour

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing characters, Well-written, Well-directed, Decent plot, Use of soundtrack
The Bad: Spike Lee rants
The Basics: When Monty Brogan gets nailed for drug possession and trafficking, he is sentenced to 7 years in prison. The 25th Hour is his last night before he goes away. What a night.


In the series premiere of Sports Night (reviewed here!), Jeremy Goodwin (an expert on sports trivia and a cute, geeky character), is forced to talk about basketball with repeated demands by the woman interviewing him for the job on Sports Night about what the New York Nicks can do to improve their game. His final answer in his desperate rant is "Tell Spike Lee to sit down and shut the hell up!" His answers get him the job. After seeing The 25th Hour, it's easy to see why. The only real strike against this movie are the moments that Edward Norton's Monty turns toward the camera and dives into a rant against everyone and everything in New York City. This loud, hate-filled outburst seems so out of place and uncharacteristic that one wonders why Spike Lee left (or put) it in. It robs the movie of perfection.

That said, The 25th Hour is the story of Monty Brogan's last twenty-four hours before he goes off to jail. Monty spends the day connecting with his friends, Jacob and Frank, pushing his loving girlfriend away, and saying good-by to his father and the criminals for whom he took the fall. These are the agonizing last hours of a convicted drug peddler trying to put his life in order and understand how he got to the point he is now at.

The 25th Hour had one of the most depressing previews I have ever seen when I saw it in the movie theater and my thought was "Why would anyone want to go see a movie that looks so unrelentingly depressing?" The preview people got it wrong. While The 25th Hour has an encompassing sense of impending doom, it does not portray Monty nearly as depressed, resigned and depressing to watch as the preview did.

In fact, Monty Brogan is a criminal we feel bad for. The film almost entirely neglects that this is a man who sold drugs, which ruin people's lives (that is characterized through a single character whose deterioration into a wasted junkie is shown), and instead illustrates the consequences to the good people who surround him as a result of his collapse. We see not only Monty's struggle, but the compelling feelings of helplessness of Jacob and self-loathing of Frank over how they let their friend fall so far.

Spike Lee does an amazing job of directing. The 25th Hour has a very distinctive look and feel of post-September 11th New York City. Lee does a great job visually keeping the movie flowing and his use of soundtrack, especially in the club near the film's end, is great.

The 25th Hour also does an excellent job of portraying dynamic characters. Mary is not simply a spoiled rich girl, Naturelle is not simply a token Latino or token girlfriend, and it is impossible to deny that Monty is more than just a criminal. Speeding to make a buy, Monty stops to rescue a seriously hurt dog. It's details like that that push The 25th Hour beyond the bland stereotypes and archetypes of the typical crime dramas.

What solidifies this movie is the amazing cast. Brian Cox plays Monty's father as resigned and considerate, a far cry from his X-Men 2 (reviewed here!) role. Anna Paquin's Mary is a nice step away from her other roles, as well. And while I'm a big fan of Phillip Seymour Hoffman (his role in Magnolia is perfectly executed), Barry Pepper as Frank steals the spotlight in every scene the two of them are together in. Pepper is acerbic and plays Frank with so much oozing self-loathing that, despite the fact that half the lines that come out of his mouth characterize him as a jerk, make it impossible not to feel for this deeply wounded man.

But the top billing rightfully goes to Edward Norton. The movie is Monty's and Norton makes Monty someone to care about. Without any trace of the angry man from Fight Club, the clown from Losing The Faith or the arrogance of his character from The Score, Norton plays Monty as a cunning man who got caught. There is a simple magnificence to the resigned looks in his eyes, face and slumping of his shoulders as he descends into acceptance of all that has happened to him. Conversely, he plays the flashbacks where Monty is at the top of his game with more of a stride, more confidence, exactly what one would expect from the character at that time in his life.

At the end of the day, The 25th Hour is good drama and it's entertaining. The viewer quickly invests in the characters and becomes intrigued by the struggles of each of them. And perhaps the most refreshing aspect is the lack of resolution at the end. Sure, all of the important plot points (like who got Monty caught) are revealed, but the way the end opens up the possibilities keeps the movie fresh and very easy to watch repeated viewings of. The DVD has some nice deleted scenes and the commentary is not bad, either.

The 25th Hour illustrates the caliber of greatness of some of the actors, directors, and editors of our new century. Far superior to Lee's He Got Game, The 25th Hour solidifies the idea that Spike Lee is a master storyteller in the film medium. He certainly knows what to do with quality actors when he gets them.

For other works with Edward Norton, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Invention Of Lying
The Incredible Hulk
The Score
Keeping The Faith
Fight Club
Rounders

8.5/10

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

© 2012, 2007, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Master Criminals Vie For The Perfect Heist In The Score!

The Good: Excellent acting, Good characters, Generally well-executed plot
The Bad: Disappointing (obvious) twist at the end, Disappointing underuse of Angela Bassett
The Basics: In yet another crime caper, Robert De Niro and Edward Norton give great performances as criminals competing to be masters.


Somewhere along the line in U.S. society, a line became not only blurred, but completely smeared. If you look at early movies, there were a line between good and evil and all of the movies were about how good triumphed over evil. Often, those old movies had the good guys behaving almost identically to the bad guys (punching people out, yelling at innocents to get information, etc.) to triumph, but you always knew who the good guys were and you were always rooting for them. Then, there came movies where the bad guys were more interesting, delicious even, than the good guys and we hated the ends of the movies because it didn't make sense that good could beat such an excellent bad guy. Somewhere in the nineties, continuing through today, movies started to focus on bad guys solely and we started rooting for the most human or likable bad guy without actually judging the quality of how bad they were.

The Score is one such movie, about a loose confederation of career criminals, led by Max. Max owes some serious money, so he hires Nick Wells to perform one last heist for him, a golden scepter stuck in a customs office. Max uses Jack Teller, a young criminal looking to score his first big theft. Jack's angle is that he has access to the customs office as he has been posing for weeks as a mentally retarded janitor there. Nick, eager to escape his life of crime and settle down once and for all as a nightclub owner, reluctantly takes the job and finds himself in a crossfire of lies and deceit.

Yes, it's another bank robber-type movie. Here, though, there's no moralizing over the actions of the characters, outside Diane (played by Angela Bassett), they are all morally corrupt thieves, hackers and liars. Outside the context of the movie, it's hard to like any of them (Diane being difficult to like because she is such a nonentity in the film).

But that's the power of The Score. Watching this movie, we willingly suspend our disbelief and our cultural values of property rights to root for Nick. We want to believe that he wants to make good and we come to see him rather early on as the most benevolent of thieves in a world populated by criminals. In short, he's the one to root for because he seems to have some aspirations of doing right and going legitimate.

Indeed, Nick is likable throughout the movie, played by Robert De Niro as tender and genuine in his scenes with Bassett's Diane. De Niro reminds us how great an actor he can be by making Nick different from his other characters. This is not a loud, angry performance, nor should it be; his character is both cunning and feeling his age. De Niro provides us with a far more reasonable interpretation of an aging person and a criminal who has survived so long without being caught than he would had he played him pretty much any other way.

The person who steals the show (largely because Marlon Brando looks like he's ready to die in every scene he's in in this movie) is Edward Norton. Norton does an amazing job playing a character playing a character. It seems like every ten reviews, I run into a story that requires a character to play another person, but the repetition here is certainly worthwhile; Norton quite adequately plays Jack playing a mentally retarded person without ever making the viewer feel it is Norton playing a mentally retarded person. That's skillful acting. Norton's use of body language and voice create an impressive alter ego that makes us believe in the will of Jack.

The only real problem, then, is in the resolution. There is a surprise twist at the end, but it is not a surprise to those of us who have respect for the way the world works. If we are to believe that Nick has survived so long without being caught, the end is more inevitable than surprising. Still, the reactions he receives are fun to watch and the movie is quite enjoyable.

While not living up to the caliber of The Usual Suspects, The Score easily engages the viewer and makes them root for one criminal over another. Too bad there's not more of a place for the good woman (Angela Bassett, whose part as Diane is miniscule) here.

For other works Frank Oz is involved in, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Monsters Inc.
Bowfinger
The Muppet Christmas Carol
The Star Wars Saga
Labyrinth

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Invention Of Lying Is A Surprisingly Smart, Somewhat Erratic, Comedy.

The Good: Starts very funny, Decent acting, Moments of character, Good DVD bonus features
The Bad: Very predictable plot arc, Dramatic change in tone midway through the film.
The Basics: The Invention Of Lying starts as a clever concept comedy, but quickly becomes a very serious, substantive film that leaves little to surprise the audience.


A few months ago, my wife and I had a free hotel stay we were enjoying when we caught the middle and end of The Invention Of Lying. My wife loves comedies and it was nice to see her laugh so much, so we kept watching it. As the movie went on, though, she began to frown and by the end, she was saying what has become a mantra around our house, “I hate it when a movie starts out funny and then gets so serious!” It is probably for that reason that it took until last night for us to get back to The Invention Of Lying. Even so, we started it eagerly, recalling that when we began the movie, it was quite funny.

And that is how The Invention Of Lying goes. It starts out exceptionally funny, has a deliriously satirical twist in the middle and then fails to sustain itself. Instead, the movie collapses into a very serious statement on the nature of reality and the larger consequences that come from living a dishonest existence. The premise of the movie is simple and is deeply related to the setting. The setting is Earth in contemporary times, but on this Earth, everyone always tells the truth. It is a world where absolute honesty exists and the idea of deceit is unfathomable to the people there.

Mark is a writer for the leading movie studio of the day. He is terribly unsuccessful and living in the shadows of Brad Kessler. Mark goes on a date with Anna, who is very much out of his league and who seems amused with him despite not being attracted to him. The next day begins with his arrival at work where his boss, Anthony, finally gets up the will to fire Mark and, dejected, Mark returns to his apartment to a landlord who wants to evict him. He goes to the bank, needing eight hundred dollars, but knowing he only has three hundred in his account. When the teller asks him how much he wants to withdraw, he commits the world’s first lie by saying “eight hundred.” The computers come back up and the teller gives him the eight hundred, despite the computer saying he has three hundred because she assumes there has been a computer error, whatwith the world’s lack of deceit.

From there, Mark realizes the power he has and he begins to lie to make changes to the lives of people around him, from a suicidal tenant living in his apartment to a random man on the street to the police. But after making himself rich and writing the first fiction screenplay, he visits his mother, who is dying in the nursing home and, in comforting her, he inadvertently creates god. This gives Mark an extraordinary amount of power, though he cannot win Anna’s heart. As Anna moves to marry Brad, Mark tries to repair the damage his lies have made to the entire world.

The Invention Of Lying is erratic, but starts very funny. The jokes may all be very similar – people saying simple, complete truths that are outrageously funny – but they work and they establish a world that is funny and occasionally brutal to watch. But with the invention of the man who watches over all things, Mark becomes a huge public figure and his lie changes the tenor of the movie. For sure, the idea that god is just a lie is a brilliant bit of satire and Ricky Gervais as Mark delivers that expertly, but the fallout from that lie makes the movie into a very serious thing.

Beyond that, The Invention Of Lying becomes painfully formulaic in its last half. While the beginning had so much potential, the latter half becomes the predictable romantic comedy in terms of plot structure as Mark realizes how important Anna is to him. The process of watching Anna fall for Mark is far less organic. The attraction there becomes he exact formula that has existed since Jane Eyre (reviewed here!) was first written.

Because so much of The Invention Of Lying hinges on the concept as opposed to the characters, the character development in the film is remarkably low. That is not to say that the characters are not interesting to watch (they are), but they lack a lot in the way of distinction as they service the “must be honest” concept more than create viable individuals on screen.

By contrast, The Invention Of Lying features amazing acting and a cast that is to die for. Jennifer Garner may have been brought in for the sex appeal and star power, but in The Invention Of Lying, she proves just how funny she can be. Jonah Hill, Jeffrey Tambor, Fionnula Flanagan, Tina Fey and Martin Star all have memorable supporting performances. In fact, part of the real surprise in The Invention Of Lying is that Rob Lowe’s role is one of his less memorable ones.

It is Ricky Gervais, however who rules The Invention Of Lying and he is amazing as Mark. His comic timing has never been better and his deliveries are spot on. He makes even the dreadful second half at least seem like it is the same movie.

On DVD, The Invention Of Lying comes loaded with bonus features, most of which take the form of deleted scenes and featurettes. The featurettes are very funny and focus a lot on the actors playing with their innate sense of comic timing, which is very entertaining.

In the end, though, The Invention Of Lying is a much harder sell than those who love comedy are likely to want. It is worth watching, but very hard to want to add to one’s permanent collection.

For other works with Jonah Hill please visit my reviews of:
Moneyball
Megamind
How To Train Your Dragon
Cyrus
Forgetting Sarah Marshall

6.5/10

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

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

Even Edward Norton Cannot Save The Incredible Hulk As Summer Lackluster Theater Continues!

The Good: Moments of performance with Norton and Tyler
The Bad: Characters fail to grow in any significant way, Much of the acting, Plot, Special effects.
The Basics: While an improvement on the Ang Lee Hulk, The Incredible Hulk still fails as it does not develop the established characters and relies heavily on other conceits of the genre.


Every now and then, I feel like I have woken up in a parallel universe. As I continue to participate in summer blockbuster season by attending viewings of the logical top film of the week (by the grosses), I've been astonished to find so many well-respected reviewers raving about The Incredible Hulk, a film I've been trying to review for the better part of an evening. Why? My reviews keep coming up short and I run out of synonyms for "terrible." Even for the air conditioning the theater offers with the ticket price, it's not worth suffering through The Incredible Hulk, a film which is essentially shown in its entirety in the theatrical trailer.

Following a botched abduction attempt by commandos and General Thunderbolt Ross, the reclusive scientist Dr. Bruce Banner's gamma ray-altered DNA falls into the hands of the military. Escaping Brazil for New York City, Dr. Banner - who has been working to cure himself of becoming a giant green monster whenever he becomes angry - finds himself pursued by General Ross. His search for a cure and his reuniting with the love of his life, Betty Ross, is cut short when the military manages to use the DNA they extracted, resulting in the Abomination, a massive gray creature that is set loose in New York City. The Hulk must therefore be allowed to emerge, so that New York City - and civilization - might be saved.

Hmmmm . . . haven't we seen essentially the same thing before? Banner struggles with his condition, a similar creature arises and only the Hulk - the alter-ego angry side of Banner - can stop it . . . It seems like that was what Hulk (reviewed here!) was all about and that movie was just plain terrible. The Incredible Hulk is, admittedly, a little better. But not by much. At all.

First, many have praised Edward Norton's presence in the film, as well as helping in penning the script. I like Edward Norton. In fact, I like his work quite a bit. Indeed, it was Edward Norton who managed to get me to go see The Incredible Hulk, when I promised myself after Hulk I would do no such thing. The problem is, Norton is the familiar Edward Norton we've already seen. And when he's not, he's not. I mean that quite literally; the only moments that Edward Norton does anything remotely unlike something we have seen before from him, he's a CGI character who is rampaging around.

As a result, much of The Incredible Hulk has Norton moping around in a ridiculously familiar way. Anyone who has seen the magnificent The 25th Hour has already seen all that Norton brings to bear in his performance in this film. He is moody and cerebral, pouting his way through his studies and search for a cure while pining for Betty. The thing is, we've seen Norton heavy and moody before and when he is so preoccupied, it feels familiar and droll. Moreover, in the moments where Norton as Banner is forced to express anger, it falls flat. Norton does fear and pain great, but when trying to express rage . . . well, there are moments the special effects work by taking over for the actor. More often than not, watching Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk seemed like watching Luke Wilson. Indeed, at some of his most cerebral moments, Norton mimics Wilson from his performance in The Royal Tennenbaums.

But more importantly, the problem with Hulk was not (so much) Eric Bana or Jennifer Connelly, but rather the terrible and predictable script. Here, the script is almost just as bad as this follows a rather predictable sequel trend of re-establishing the super hero, introducing the villain, thwarting the villain. Like most such sequels, there is more than one villain and the way The Incredible Hulk fails to engage is that in the sequences where Banner is eluding Thunderbolt Ross, he doesn't grow. Sure, Banner is plagued by this demon inside him that comes out all angry and slobbery. But when he's not focused on a cure - which is pretty boring to watch -, he's restraining himself with his girlfriend (sorry, restraint is pretty boring to watch, too) or he's restraining himself from fighting the military commandos which, also, not the most interesting sequences. In other words, in the establishing moments of the flick wherein Banner is shown doing relaxing things and carefully monitoring his vital signs, he is established as a character who is fighting for control and the savvy viewer gets that. After recently having everything spoon fed in the latest Indiana Jones outing, I was ready to not have my intelligence insulted. Alas, The Incredible Hulk does not fit that bill.

Moreover, the rest of the characters are flat and uninspired, making Banner and Hulk's actions seem less heroic. Betty is the the archetypal lady in waiting, Thunderbolt is the generic military leader and Blonsky - the commando who becomes the Abomination - seems more of a parody of a military commando than its archetype. He spouts some of the most bland, generic lines of the film and while it is clear what motivates Banner into becoming the Hulk, what spurs Blonsky into the Abomination and traps him there is less sensible.

And everyone else in the movie is window dressing. In some ways, it doesn't even matter as The Incredible Hulk rapidly degenerates into a series of special effects battle sequences that are more cartoonish than a serious cinephile will be comfortable with. To be sure, the computer animation that defines the creature the Hulk is more detailed than in the prior cinematic outing, but it is no better in terms of its realism. Many of the sequences that are supposed to be exciting and big falls dramatically short as the two computer generated monsters ridiculously interact.

But following so closely on the heels of Iron Man, the plot of The Incredible Hulk seems structurally dull and at least the earlier Marvel film had some intrigue and character issues. But, like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk quickly degenerates into a film wherein the hero is established and then a bigger, grayer version of the same comes along to stomp on everything. Yes, we've seen it and while the super hero genre film niche might be tough to manage - especially when creating a sequel - the least the Marvel film division could do is try to put the most similar films out on different years!

The Incredible Hulk does not advance the character of Bruce Banner and his strained relationship with Betty is glossed over so much that it is hard to empathize and care. Ultimately, The Incredible Hulk continues what was begun years ago with equal or better actors being utilized in exactly the way one might expect them to be (without challenging the viewer's expectations in this regard) in a plot that is so hackneyed and obvious that only those who have to sneak into this PG-13 film would find it original. And for the adults in the audience, it's hard even to find it entertaining.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |