The Tragedies Of Hindsight And Regret Are Explored In The Way

The Good: Decent character study, Decent acting, Good direction, Nice scenery
The Bad: Light on plot
The Basics: When his son dies in France, Tom takes up the journey he was on in The Way.


It is, admittedly, difficult to make a film about regret, especially trying to make a new film that focuses on that emotion as a theme. Making a film that is engaging and worth watching on the subject of regret or breaking addictions is even more difficult. And yet, Emilio Estevez manages to do just that with the film he wrote (for the screen), produced, and directed, The Way. I learned of the movie back in 2010 when it was released, but I did not get around to watching it until now.

As a fan of The West Wing (reviewed here!), Martin Sheen has a pretty exceptional cache with me for what I will watch provided he simply shows up. The Way is a film that brings together Martin Sheen, his son Emilio Estevez, with a special appearance by Emilio’s sister, Renee, and my jury is still out on how good the acting in The Way actually is. After all, Emilio Estevez plays a character who is the son of Martin Sheen’s character, so Sheen’s portrayal of grief in scenes where Tom identifies Daniel’s body are hardly the by-product of amazing acting. But, as a character-driven journey drama, The Way is a smashing success, even if its art house circuit release never made it a commercial success. The Way is not the type of film that is intended for a mass blockbuster appeal, though its message is a timeless, secularly-executed emotional journey that more people would do well to pay attention to.

The optometrist, Tom, is out golfing with his friends when he gets a phone call. The call is from France and it is then that Tom learns that his son, Daniel, has died there. Regretfully recalling how he did not accompany Daniel on his son’s journey, Tom goes to France. There, he identifies Daniel’s body and decides to take up his son’s journey. Taking up the 800 kilometer trek known as the El Camino De Santiago, Tom tries to do honor to his son and work through his feelings of loss and regret.

Along the way, Tom meets a Dutch traveler, Joost, who is taking the hike to try to lose weight for his brother’s wedding and Sarah, a Canadian who wants to quit smoking. They also encounter a priest, an Irish writer wrestling with writer’s block, and any number of locals who have an effect on Tom. While his journey starts as a solitary quest, he soon finds himself accompanied by the others, making the long trip through weather and emotional turmoil.

The Way is a predictable emotional journey that provides Tom with peace over the loss of his son. It is hard to blame Estevez for that; the hike can only really end with Tom getting emotional catharsis, learning he was right about his lifestyle or dying along the way. The journey narrative is a somewhat limited one, but Estevez presents it well. In fact, The Way looks like it might take a problematic detour with the introduction of the manic writer, Jack, but the script and performances hold together through the addition of the Irishman. Estevez uses it for a chance to redicate The Way to the internal journey of Tom. He wants no part in Jack’s book and at that point in the film, the movie begins to wander toward “who might Tom run into next,” and returns its focus to Tom’s sense of isolation and his internal emotional conflict.

Beyond that, though, The Way is hard to discuss and evaluate; it is what it is. Comedic interludes like the one with El Ramon keep the film from becoming too heavy or overbearing, but for the most part, The Way is a quiet, emotional journey that sets out with a simple premise and executes that well. By the end, the viewer cares about Tom, and (to a lesser extent) his comrades, and The Way is more substantial than just a travelogue for those considering El Camino De Santiago.

For other works with Deborah Kara Unger, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Silent Hill
Payback
The Game

7/10

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

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

One Iconic Scene Does Not Justify The Lackluster Spy Film Mission: Impossible

The Good: Smart protagonist, Generally good acting
The Bad: Special effects, Obvious plot reversals, No real character development, Dumb peripheral characters, Overbearing soundtrack
The Basics: When Ethan Hunt’s team is burned, he learns there is a conspiracy within the Impossible Missions Force and he is the prime suspect.


With so many reviewers going gaga for James Bond in celebration of his 50th Anniversary and the accompanying Blu-Ray/DVD collection for that milestone, I thought, “Now’s the perfect time for me to review Mission: Impossible.” What can I say? I’m a contrarian at heart. Actually, I have a thing about having sensibility in my reviews and I vaguely recalled seeing Mission: Impossible III (reviewed here!) and being disappointed by how derivative of Alias (reviewed here!) it was. Conversely, I enjoyed last year’s Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol (reviewed here!), so I thought it was time to go back and see the first Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible film.

I am not impressed. Within the film and as a professional reviewer, there were too many conceits utilized by Mission: Impossible that made it problematic at best. As a viewer who understands how Hollywood works (at least in general terms) the fact that the film opens with a shot of Emilio Estevez, whose name does not appear in the opening credits, is a disturbing nod that informs the viewer they should not get overly attached to his character. In the film itself, Mission: Impossible features one of the dumbest criminal masterminds of all time in that the “diabolical genius” who is behind the film’s conspiracy (which he has apparently been planning for some time) stupidly tells the truth at key moments which allow the protagonist to easily reason who is behind everything. Obviously, if one is a mole in a government agency, they should be used to lying and working covertly. The villain in Mission: Impossible does so so poorly that it is hard to believe that the person gets as far as they do.

Following a mission in Kiev, Jim Phelps assembles an Impossible Missions Force Team in Prague. With the stated mission being to recover a disc that has the aliases and mundane names of every IMF operative working in Eastern Europe, Phelps’s team, which includes Ethan Hunt, Claire Phelps, Sarah, Jack and another operative, infiltrates a party. The mission, however, goes sour and everyone but Hunt appears killed. Contacting command, Hunt is put in contact with Kittridge, who happens to be in Prague and is able to extract Hunt. Meeting with him, Kittridge reveals that there is a mole in the IMF and because Hunt’s family farm has suddenly come out of debt, he is the prime suspect.

Evading Kittridge’s men, Hunt makes it to a safe house, where he attempts to find the people who gave the IMF the mission and he discovers Claire is still alive. Claire and Hunt assemble their own team of former IMF agents to get the list which was used as bait to draw out the real mole. As Kittridge closes in on his team, Hunt learns the identity and motivations of the enemies of the IMF.

To the credit of Mission: Impossible, Ethan Hunt is characterized as a realistically smart protagonist. He asks – immediately – one of the key questions of Kittridge when he learns that the other agent is in Prague. Hunt is operating on a level that makes him seem like a credible, realistically-seasoned spy. He might not be a good son (why would he let his family farm stay in debt if he had such a good job?!), but he is a realistically competent spy protagonist.

The acting in Mission: Impossible is fair. Tom Cruise is credible, if young looking, for a superspy action hero Ethan Hunt. On the character front, Ethan Hunt and his family ties make less sense for a spy of his caliber (obvious weakness), but Cruise gets into the role after the opening meeting scene (in that, none of the performers seem to be taking the briefing seriously enough to be actual intelligence agents. The scene is fun, but not at all believable). The only other truly credible actors in Mission: Impossible are Emilio Estavez and Ving Rhames. Jean Reno, who can usually be counted on for a great performance, plays Krieger as clumsy at a moment when the character cannot afford to be and he does not sell the moment. Similarly, Emmanuelle Beart, who plays Claire, is a pretty generic pouty-lipped, Hollywood ideal who has no presence or gravitas on the screen. Henry Czerny, at least, has the excuse that he isn’t given much to do with Kittridge as a generic antagonist.

Several of the shots in Mission: Impossible do not work in a rational sense. Coming off the iconic scene in the record’s room, Ethan Hunt catches a bead of his own sweat to prevent it from setting off the alarm. The shot looks marginally good, but it is so obviously an insert shot that it is distracting to the seasoned viewer. In other words, there is no way the hand could be at the angle and placement it is shot in, especially catching the sweat, in the reality of Hunt’s body position in the shot. In fact, the movement needed to make it work would have caused the suspended character to pinwheel.

Director Brian De Palma sacrifices rationality for the cool look in several key moments. The finale of the film involves Ethan Hunt laying inches away from a helicopter blade and he looks mildly startled. That helicopter blade should have been exceptionally hot; regardless of it missing slicing open Hunt’s neck, he should be pretty uncomfortable from the heat. De Palma hopes the viewer will not notice this. Furthermore, he uses an incredible reliance on the soundtrack to telegraph the emotions and tension the viewer is supposed to feel.

They do not.

As well, De Palma makes several obvious cuts - most obviously with Jack's demise - where he is obviously laboring to keep the film PG-13 and it looks and feels sloppy at those moments.  The result is a spy film that strives to be even average, but is so preoccupied with creating the next “surprise” twist that the viewer is left bored for much of the movie.

For other spy thrillers, check out my reviews of:
Skyfall
The Bourne Identity
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

3/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

Bad Child Of The ‘80’s! The Breakfast Club Left Me Unimpressed.

The Good: Decent acting, Great character studies
The Bad: Boring plot, Moments that pull focus/melodramatic aspects.
The Basics: The Breakfast Club is rightfully an original and a classic, but it is not as tight or compelling when viewed objectively.


On Thanksgiving Eve, my wife’s family arrived and I was suddenly conscripted to find a copy of The Breakfast Club. For some reason, they were obsessing on seeing The Breakfast Club as soon as they arrived and, after making the popcorn, I hunted down a copy at a local video rental chain. I had only seen The Breakfast Club once, back in the day . . . in the ‘80’s. The Breakfast Club is one of the quintessential 1980’s film and after watching it with them, I felt somewhat jaded. The Breakfast Club was good, but despite admiring the level of character explored throughout it, it is not as tight or interesting a film as many people made it out to me for the last twenty years.

The Breakfast Club is like Twelve Angry Men, but without a point. Twelve Angry Men is a taut character study that explores a jury and how people’s ideas and backstories influence their interpretation of facts in a case as they deliberate. The Breakfast Club does not actually have a set purpose, it is about an experience and, perhaps it is my distance from high school, but it is not even a terribly interesting shared experience.

Andrew, Brian, Bender (John), Claire, and Allison are sentenced to a Saturday detention at Shermer High School where they are at the mercy of Vice Principal Richard Vernon. Andrew is a jock with a strong sense of ethics, Brian is a quiet, brainy kid, and Claire is the archetypal prom queen and daddy’s girl. John Bender is an angry outsider and Allison starts as a weird, quiet girl whose only clear trait is that she steals whatever is within arm’s reach. After Vernon locks them in and assigns them to write an essay about who each of them is, John removes a screw from the door, which allows them to have a bit of privacy.

Without being under the close guard of Vernon, the five students talk with one another and bond over their youthful, angst and traumas.

The Breakfast Club is basically five young people sitting around and talking with one another. The whole movie is essentially a slow character study that illustrates how each of the young people lowers their barriers. Or, at times, it’s a stupid exploration of teen peer pressure where a bunch of people who claim to be individuals who are from all sorts of different walks of life sit around bitching about their parents and smoking pot.

The characters, outside voiding all sense of originality and independence from one another by doing all the same things as one another for the day, are interesting and well developed. Writer and director John Hughes has a strong sense of psychological motivation and he seems to understand that most young people are damaged by expectations placed on them by their parents. That works in The Breakfast Club and while Judd Nelson’s John Bender dominates most of the beginning of the film, all of the characters have a chance to present their voice and the film even digresses to have Vernon and the janitor, Carl, have some moments together.

The acting in The Breakfast Club is good from the mostly-young cast. In fact, there was only one moment when Molly Ringwald’s performance seems melodramatic and over the top. The rest of the time, cast members like Judd Nelson, Anthony Michael Hall (Brian) and especially Emilio Estevez portray their “types” exceptionally well. Estevez is a convincing jock and Hall plays the quiet, self-tormented overachiever quite proficiently. Ally Sheedy does weird wonderfully (probably how she ended up with the recurring gig on Psych!) and Molly Ringwald is the embodiment of the archetype of the teen princess.

But, despite some wonderful lines and understanding better a few more references than I recalled from the first time I saw it, The Breakfast Club left me feeling bored. I waited for any of the students to follow their own dreams and ambitions instead of just falling in line with whatever one of the two Alphas (or Claire using her sex appeal, as she does on Brian near the film’s end) demands. The Breakfast Club is good, but it is far more meaningful to those who has a strong nostalgia for high school in the 1980s. That’s just not me.

For other works with Anthony Michael Hall, check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight
Edward Scissorhands

6/10

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

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

Bobby: Another Big Cast Movie I Wanted To Like More

The Good: Awesome cast, Some decent acting, Some interesting characters, DVD extras
The Bad: Most of the characters are not developed enough, Use of archival footage/direction
The Basics: Awkwardly combining archived footage and newly directed material, the fateful day of RFK's primary victory in California is recreated in a painstaking and painful way.


Sometimes movies that have huge casts know how to use those big casts. They wow the audience with their performances with sheer force of numbers. So, for example, critics often overlook the magnificent Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) because the caliber of the actors in it is so high as to overwhelm the audience and for as hard as I was on Mystic River (reviewed here!), the main reason was because all of the actors were so extraordinary that their performances only lived up to the high expectations of greatness from such a group. In fact, the last movie I saw with a massive, well-known cast that truly disappointed me was A Prairie Home Companion (reviewed here!). And then there was Bobby, a film I was excited about and just caught on DVD.

On June 6th, 1968 in Los Angeles California, the California primary is heating up as a contest between Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Senator McCarthy and the victory speech for RFK is set for that night at the Ambassador Hotel. As the day progresses, workers, performers and patrons of the Ambassador Hotel prepare for the arrival of Kennedy and there are numerous conflicts and collisions that occur, prompting actions and reactions. The people spending the day going about their lives include kitchen help, notably Jose and Miguel - Latino workers compelled to work a double shift - and black chef Edward Robinson. When Timmons fails to allow the workers to go vote, his boss Paul fires him. Paul is not having the best day as this is the day he and his mistress, Angela, part ways and his wife Miriam finds out about his indiscretion. Retired doorman John Casey sits in the lounge playing chess with those who will play with him, like Nelson. In the hotel's lounge, Virginia Fallon is set to give her final performance and leave town after introducing RFK.

Outside the immediate politics of the hotel, though still encompassed within the walls of the structure, there are a number of personal and political machinations at work. Fallon's husband Tim has chosen this day to leave Virginia. The establishment is overrun with campaign workers for Robert F. Kennedy, like Jimmy and Cooper who spend the day getting high instead of working. They get LSD from Fisher and spend the day tripping. This is unlike Wade and Dwayne, who have spent the day working to create a victory for RFK in the primary. This is the day that Diane is marrying William so he will be sent to Germany instead of Vietnam. It is also the day RFK supporters Jack and Samantha arrive to see the future president.

The recent success of such movies as Crash (reviewed here!) that employ large casts with characters involved in intertwining storylines have encouraged other writers and directors to explore the same with their own ideas. Bobby is written and directed by Emilio Estevez, who also appears in the movie as Tim Fallon. The problem here is that while Estevez certainly captures the chaos and scope of the Ambassador Hotel on that June day, the character elements are sacrificed to fit all of the stories in.

In short, because there are essentially twenty one integral characters (none of whom are Bobby Kennedy) with at least three other recurring characters that try to squeeze in for time, none of them have the chance to fully develop and be explored. Instead, they are almost all given the short run of screentime.

Which leads me to one of the biggest criticisms of Bobby; the title. Titles, any writer will tell you, are incredibly important and Bobby is a misnomer. This is not a film about Robert F. Kennedy. While it certainly does tell the story of one of the most fateful days in American history, it almost completely neglects the real stories of Robert F. Kennedy's day. This is a story about the Ambassador Hotel, building up to RFK's arrival, it's not about Bobby Kennedy. Certainly everyone in the hotel is there directly or indirectly because of Kennedy, but he is an ancillary character in the story.

Moreover, Kennedy appears in the film through use of historical clips, many from news reports using archive footage. Kennedy, Mike Wallace and another news anchor appear in grainy clips that illustrate the reality of the day. Unfortunately, Estevez combines these clips with the main footage of the movie, pulling the viewer out of narrative as he tells it. Instead of relegating the quotes and clips with RFK to a prologue and epilogue, Bobby uses footage throughout that integrates poorly with the actual movie.

Nowhere is this more problematic than near the climax of the film. While Kennedy is on stage in clips that are wonderfully restored for the film, he is flanked by historical figures who the viewer have been watching for the past hour and a half. Yes, Estevez clumsily integrates footage that includes the real Wade - for example - and for those looking at the continuity, this is a terrible attempt to reconcile the movie with itself. To make clear, Estevez uses footage from reality and tries to put it into the movie, usually when RFK is involved and the footage does not match in terms of quality nor composition, making the movie very poorly assembled in the end.

Estevez should have used his RFK stand in Dave Fraunces - or found another actor - to recreate RFK footage for the movie as opposed to sloppily sticking in old clips.

That said, what we do see about the various characters is enough to make this film work at least one viewing. The dialogue between Jose, Miguel and Edward is phenomenal. Rarely in American cinema is there discussion of interethnic dynamics that calls it as it sees it, documenting the tensions between blacks and latinos. Edward's conversation about how he lost his anger is amazing and very compelling. Despite how little screentime he has, he resonates as a worthwhile and intriguing character.

Similarly, the weird relationship between soon-to-be-spouses Diane and William is awkward, stilted and in every way wonderful. When Diane quietly declares that she would have married the two people from her high school that recently were killed in Vietnam if it would have saved their lives is telling and sad. William's understanding that Diane's willingness to marry him is not necessarily based on love is sad and touching.

The character that is most developed and least overstated is John Casey, the former doorman. He is quite simply lonely and retired, occupying a couch in the lobby playing chess in order to stave off utter loneliness and lethargy. His mind is sharp and he has wonderful memories of the Ambassador Hotel, but he is a man who had nowhere to go in retirement and ends up desperate for any interaction with people.

Casey is played with wonderful simplicity by Sir Anthony Hopkins. Hopkins has one of his most understated roles here and he creates a character with both quiet dignity and desperation as he waits for the day to end. I've never seen Hopkins played bewildered as well as he does in the climax of this film.

Sadly, most of the other actors do not have the chance to shine as much as they deserve. Almost completely neglected is Martin Sheen whose bit part in Bobby makes the viewer wonder why he took it (though supporting his son is a good enough reason for me!). And while Laurence Fishburne is wonderfully cast as Edward Robinson, his performance is nothing we have not seen from him in, say, The Matrix. He plays the sage quite well, but here he does nothing to impress the viewer with his range.

Neglected even more is one of my favorites, William H. Macy, who wowed me in Magnolia (reviewed here!). Macy plays the hotel's manager, Paul and his role is little more than a cameo at key moments, a clear underuse of his talents. Also appearing with minimal screentime are Elijah Wood, Lindsay Lohan, Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Emilio Estevez. And while it's wonderful to see Freddy Rodriguez in a film, his part is nothing terribly challenging or different from his signature role in Six Feet Under.

I will note that Joshua Jackson stood out as Wade. Jackson has a seriousness to him that allows him to perfectly embody a young aide to a politician. He seems like a manager and he has a dignity that I would not have anticipated from him.

On the DVD presentation, one of the coolest features is a panel discussion with people who were actually at the Ambassador Hotel the night in question. Their conversation is insightful and it has a strength to it that wonderfully tells the story of reality from a different perspective after Estevez's production is over.

It is only the strength of what is revealed by characters in what little time they are given, combined with the strength of the acting when the actors are permitted to present their talents and the decent DVD bonuses that save this otherwise mediocre film. Sadly, while I watched, I continued to wait for it to become extraordinary and was a little let down when the best it achieved was adequate. Recommended for a viewing, as opposed to purchasing for a permanent collection.

For other works with Freddy Rodriguez, check out my takes on:
Six Feet Under
Havoc
Payback

6/10

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.
| | |