One Of The Coolest Dystopian Films Ever: How Did Equilibrium Not Explode At The Box Office?!

The Good: Decent character arc, Good acting, Good plot, Most of the special effects
The Bad: Moments of predictability, Lack of realism for special effects in the combat scenes.
The Basics: The natural extension to Brazil, Equilibrium is a stylish, cool, story of one man who turns against his emotionless existence to free the enslaved humanity.


When it comes to truly great films, there are few that hold a candle to Brazil (reviewed here!). That said, even I have to admit that cinematic storytelling has come a long way since Terry Gilliam created his movie masterpiece. There is something rather amusing to me about the fact that it took until today for me to find one of the films that actually gives Brazil a thematic run-for-its-money: Equilibrium.

Equilibrium is a dystopian action film that is incredibly close to perfect. In fact, were it not for what I thought initially was poor acting from Angus Macfadyen actually telegraphs the film’s climax in a troubling way. Between that and a lack of realistic blood spray, of a magnitude not seen since 28 Days Later (reviewed later!) where blood was everywhere but somehow does not infect the protagonists, Equilibrium is taken down just a notch . . . but it is still very much worth watching. While writer and director Kurt Wimmer deserves a lot of credit for all he accomplished with an impressive cast in Equilibrium, had Quentin Tarantino directed Equilibrium with his characteristic penchant for blood, it might well have been perfect. Indeed, there are a number of stylistic similarities between Equilibrium and Kill Bill, Volume 1 (reviewed here!) and The Matrix (reviewed here!).

Decades after World War III has devastated Earth, the survivors of the nuclear holocaust live in Libria, a walled-up city where they have renounced all emotion. The society that has been produced seeks to eliminate anger and other emotions by regulating the citizens through the drug Prozium II. Enforcing the laws are Grammaton Clerics, emotionless police officers responsible for destroying the last remaining vestiges of art and culture from before the War . . . and the offenders who have been rescuing them for years. John Preston is one of the best, most efficient, Grammaton Clerics and after he and his partner, Partridge, destroy a cache of artwork in the Nethers (outside the walls), Preston realizes that his partner is experiencing emotions. Killing him, Preston is brought to his superior, Dupont. Dupont charges Preston with hunting down the last remaining rebels against ordered society.

Now paired with Brandt, an ambitious young Cleric, Preston goes hunting for rebels. He captures Mary O’Brien, whom he learns actually had a connection with Partridge. After Preston misses a single dose of his emotion-inhibiting drug, he begins to question his place in society. He starts to feel emotions and becomes protective of Mary. He plays a hunch and manages to find the rebel hideout. Exposed to the controller of Libria and menaced by his own son, Preston must choose to become the agent of change or enforce the unnatural laws of the new society.

Equilibrium is very much like V For Vendetta (reviewed here!) but it does not make its rhetoric as explicit. The world created by Kurt Wimmer is dark and starts with an essential premise that is audacious, but not entirely improbable. For sure, one might think that if a drug was being used to control human emotion and society that it would be one that would build-up in one’s system so if they missed a single injection they would not lose all their control.

Despite the main character reversal surrounding the identity of Father, the controller of Libria, Equilibrium is actually unpredictable and rendered in an impressive way. The film slowly erodes the control of John Preston, making him a compelling protagonist that one truly empathizes with. Preston lives in fear of his own son and he has to keep even that emotion in check. The film hinges on Preston’s ability to appear unemotional while his control breaks down and he finds something compelling in emotions. That Preston does not suddenly turn against all that he has built makes for a realistic story that fits within the world in which he is trapped.

In fact, all that is not terribly realistic about the dark, controlled world of Equilibrium is how bloodless the combats are. As well, the combat and human endurance represented by the characters’ continued participation in such exerting exercises is more stylish than realistic. That keeps Equilibrium entertaining at the very least. The film has a good flow and some of the reversals are truly surprising. The final combat scene, which is essentially a sword fight with pistols is exceptionally entertaining and well-paced.

On the acting front, Equilibrium is a great use of established talents. While Christian Bale has long illustrated the ability to portray characters who are emotionally-restrained, Emily Watson, who usually plays stoic or emotionally-awkward characters represents the emotionally-free Mary O’Brien and she plays the part perfectly. Taye Diggs smiles a bit much for Brandt to be truly realistic in the world of Equilibrium, but Angus Macfadyen’s smarmy Dupont makes for an interesting foil for Bale’s Preston. Matthew Harbour is eerie as Robbie Preston and that he keeps Christian Bale in place is pretty impressive.

Equlibrium is a smart, fast-paced film that accomplishes what most dystopian science fiction films today fail to do. It is worth hunting down and sharing.

For other works with Sean Bean, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Mirror Mirror
Game Of Thrones - Season 1
Silent Hill
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy

9/10

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

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

P.T. Anderson Creates a Dramatic Opus Using . . . Adam Sandler?! He Does With Punch-Drunk Love!

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing characters, Decent plot, Directoral style
The Bad: Difficult to watch for its disturbing characterization and awkwardness
The Basics: In P.T. Anderson's disturbed character study, Punch-Drunk Love, Barry Egan's constant betrayal by those around him is finally tempered by the love of a beautiful woman.


P.T. Anderson, the writer/director genius behind such films as Boogie Nights and the vastly superior Magnolia took a little bit of time off after the ordeal of making his perfect film. When he returned, it shocked many of his fans when he announced that he would be directing a movie with Adam Sandler as the lead. Some of us groaned, but the rest decided to trust Anderson; he had earned the trust with his library before this movie. Punch-Drunk Love defies every expectation one might have for an Adam Sandler movie.

Barry Egan is a small business owner of a gag prop company in California who lives a secluded life, pressured by his eight sisters. One morning, he is waiting at work when a bizarre accident occurs, depositing a harmonium in his life. That same morning, he meets Lena, a shy woman who seems strangely attracted to him. Following a torturous night for Barry where he is forced to deal with his overbearing sisters who malign him, Barry calls a telephone sex line. When the woman he talked to the night before extorts him for money and he resists, Barry is mugged and decides to follow Lena to Hawaii. As they fall in love, Barry works to trust Lena and overcome the obstacles put in his way by the villainous Dean.

The reason Punch-Drunk Love is so successful as a film is that it is not an Adam Sandler film. Let's dispense with that rumor right off the bat. This is a P.T. Anderson film, not an Adam Sandler flick. As a result, one has to dispense with certain preconceptions going into it. The first is that the movie is going to be stupid. This film is just as highbrow and thought-provoking as any of P.T. Anderson's other works. The other thing that a lot of people have trouble with is accepting that Adam Sandler is the star of this film, yet it is not funny.

The problem I ran into with seeing Punch-Drunk Love with an audience was that the mentality of the audience was "this is an Adam Sandler movie, therefore, it must be funny" view. This is especially disturbing when Barry is being tormented and chased by hoodlums; to be in a crowd of people laughing. Anderson has adeptly created a piece that utilizes Sandler in a highly dramatic role and the unfortunate thing is that too many of Sandler's supposed "fans" do not take him seriously in this endeavor. It's disappointing because here he is proving he has what it takes to actually ACT!

That is not to say the film is without humor. It is very funny in points, most notably Egan's attempts to explain how he is scamming Healthy Choice for free airline miles. It's a brilliant scheme and between Hard Eight and Punch-Drunk Love, one gets the feeling that P.T. Anderson must be quite the swindler for all the scams he illustrates in his films. The movie has moments of lightheartedness and uses Luiz Guzman as a great straightman to Sandler's heavy. There is humor.

But it's not a funny movie. It's not a comedy. Essentially, Punch-Drunk Love revolves around a character who is deeply scarred by the constant betrayals in his life. He confides in various people, all of whom betray his confidence in one form or another leading him to lie almost compulsively. Because he never receives the trust he needs from another person, Egan naturally makes it so he cannot be trusted, flat out lying about his past and his temper. Egan lashes out at a world that is constantly betraying him. From sisters who taunt him, to a brother-in-law who he tries to get help from to the phone sex woman who tries to take his money, Barry Egan is a man constantly betrayed. He becomes very empathetic and his emotional outbursts become understandable and sad. But not funny. Perhaps the laughter of the audience was from discomfort. It is uncomfortable to see such an awkward character attempting to make it through all of his obstacles.

Lena, then, becomes Egan's moral compass, someone who allows him to begin to normalize. Through his unbetrayed ability to trust Lena, Barry begins to love and, as he says, that makes him powerful. Ultimately, it's a triumphant film; it just takes a LOT of uncomfortable, heartwrenching incidents to get him there.

Adam Sandler does an amazing job at playing Barry Egan. He creates a character distinctly different from all other Sandler characters he has heretofore played. Egan is likable, somewhat intelligent, but ultimately deeply scarred emotionally. Sandler is sure to keep him multifaceted, never allowing himself to degenerate into a parody of the anger Egan expresses. It's quite an accomplishment for Sandler.

Emily Watson plays off Sandler brilliantly. Her muted smile and quiet voice create the perfect, shy counterpart for Egan. Moreover, Watson is utterly disarming to the point of being shocking when she is finally able to reveal how similar Lena is to Barry. Watson creates an unlikely screen chemistry with Sandler as well, making Punch-Drunk Love a very visually easy movie to watch.

Ultimately, much of the credit for Punch-Drunk Love must go to writer-director P.T. Anderson. Anderson once again illustrates a strong - if depressing - understanding of human nature. He manages to create a strange blend of visual images, soft music and quirky characters resulting in a movie like no other. His command of dialog is superb and his execution of this weird love story illustrates that he has the ability to do something that is emotionally epic, without being exceptionally long in presenting it. Here, Anderson packs a maximum of emotional resonance into a discrete package.

Punch-Drunk Love is not an easy movie to watch. The protagonist is tormented and teetering on the very edge of insane rage. The nice thing about the film is this is the story of what pulls him back to the socially-acceptable norm. And the answer is love. That's pretty refreshing, even if you're stuck in an audience that can only think to laugh at it.

For other movies with Philip Seymour Hoffman, please visit my reviews of:
Moneyball
The Ides Of March
The Invention Of Lying
Charlie Wilson’s War
Mission: Impossible III
Capote
Strangers With Candy
The 25th Hour
State And Main

9/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for a list of movies I have reviewed organized by title!

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

Gosford Park Illustrates Both Sides Of The Social Mirror!

The Good: Most of the acting, Elements of characterization (when characters actually are granted character here!).
The Bad: Direction, Far too many characters
The Basics: Quick camera cuts and an abundance of characters makes Gosford Park a less than inspired murder mystery.


Every now and then, there comes a film we want to like. Right out, we want to be prejudiced toward it and feel like we want to recommend it on some intangible level alone. Gosford Park was one of those films for me, when I first picked it up. Then I watched it.

Gosford Park is, most simply, a story about London in 1932 when several upper class folks get together for a shooting party and bring their servants. The film is split between the world of the rich and those who wait upon them. Rather cleverly shot, there is not a single scene that does not have a member of the serving staff present to witness the actions and words of the wealthy. Being that this is more than just a social treatise, there are all sorts of intrigues that appear to center around Sir William McCordle, whose estate the action of the film occurs on. The intrigues include questionable heredity, questionable marital status, infidelity, promiscuity, and questionable social standing as well as economic shortages and professional envy. The plot reaches a peak when McCordle himself is killed. All of the intrigues lead any one of the characters to have a solid motive for murder.

And there are a ton of characters. There are no less than eleven wealthy primary characters and their servants. At a minimum, then, there are twenty-two people competing for airtime in this two hour, eighteen minute flick. There's a reason I only mention Sir William; there are too many others to mention to do justice to the characters. In fact, I believe it impossible to give a description (or even listing) of the characters that would make the film sound either remotely interesting or without giving everything away. Either way, the list would be quite long.

Therein lies one of the film's major problems. There are too many characters to keep track of. I'm not saying that like some nincompoop; I have an eye for detail that noticed the bottle of poison in the first scene and that it was moved to the left side the next time it was seen. The problem was not in the details, it was in the sheer number of people to attempt to keep track of. Several of them look similar enough to be problematic.

In this case, I think part of the fault sits with the film's director. I know it's heresy to claim Robert Altman isn't the best director in the universe, but in this particular film, his directing is problematic. In an effort to create an atmosphere that is filled with movement and the sense of busy urgency like that of a waiting staff - which Altman does wonderfully here - he sacrifices the chance to focus on the characters and deliver any genuine sense of personality to the characters.

The lone exception to this is Mary, the servant to the Countess. Mary becomes the focus of the film as the only one who seems to be able to put together the truth about the murder and a few other of the plot lines. On a character level, this is problematic because there is another character whose entire place in the film seems to be to live both sides of the wall. His name is Henry Denton and his character would have been an ideal one to figure everything out as he lives - in the film - as both a servant and later as a man of some importance in the social circle upstairs.

But, this is not the way the film goes. It becomes Mary's film as she unwittingly puts together the pieces in the murder that the arrogant Inspector never does. Bully for her.

The main problem is that it's hard to care who committed the murder because Sir William was unlikable and everyone wanted him dead. But more than that, any of the people who could have killed him never live up to their full potential of being even a remotely interesting or developed character.

Conversely, the acting in Gosford Park is wonderful. Mary is played wonderfully by Kelly McDonald. She makes the role both naive and knowing, balancing the two with facial expressions and subtle eye movements that clue us in to her very thoughts. The always wonderful Emily Watson appears as one of the head servants doing her usual fabulous job of being something more than simply eye candy. And while the film is littered with wonderful actors giving great performances, - the list truly is too long to go into - Richard E. Grant steals every scene he's in as George. Not the best character necessarily, but well played by Grant and every time he's on the screen, his presence demands attention.

So, who would like this film? Beats me. I think it's ideal for people who like those stuffy PBS BBC imports. It's slow, confused on the character level and sometimes melodramatic. But it does have moments of humor and it is a murder mystery. Did it grab me? No. I think The Usual Suspects and Bound (reviewed here!) are far superior. But if you wanted the 1932 stuffy British slow to develop answer to the action and mystery of those films, well then, I suppose Gosford Park would be a place you might want to hang out.

For other British dramas, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The English Patient
A Room With A View
Elizabeth

6/10

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

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Another Long Thinking-Persons Movie! Cradle Will Rock

The Good: Acting, Casting, Tapestry of plots, Ambiguity of message
The Bad: Moments of pacing (density)
The Basics: Another film that ought to have been contending for greater things in 1999, Cradle Will Rock is a character-driven tapestry of 1930s U.S.


Cradle Will Rock is potentially one of the greatest robberies in film history. No, it does not steal from other people's works or such, but in the races to win awards and receive recognition and an audience, it most certainly was robbed. It's ironic, considering the film is often about people standing up and acknowledging truths and greatness, that so few people stand up to praise the movie.

The film has a large scope and as such it often loses people, especially those who wish to see a movie without having to concentrate on it. The plots and characters weave around and play off each other. Nelson Rockefeller has chosen to have Diego Rivera paint the mural in the lobby of Rockefeller Center, which becomes problematic as the leftist artist incorporates images such as Lenin and syphilis into the work. WPA worker Hazel Huffman has rallied several anti-Communist artists to aid her in testifying against the WPA. One such artist is vaudeville ventriloquist Tommy Crickshaw, whose character arc is quite gripping. Largely the film plays around with Aldo Silvano and Olive Stanton, who are playing in a WPA play called "Cradle Will Rock," which is on the importance of Unions in America. Set against the play is a whole plot of steel tycoon Gray Mathers who is supplying Mussolini with steel.

The film is truly a tapestry and without knowing - or being able to appreciate - that, the viewer is lost. It's a complex film, especially as it says one thing and does another. For example, the play Cradle Will Rock is attempting to show the benefits of a union while the events surrounding the play lead to the Actor's Guild refusing to let the play be performed. If anything, the film is making the most potent argument about Unions ever: that they have their time and place, but their application is not universally beneficial to those who are a part of it. It's a story set in the 1930s, illustrating a concept that took much longer to be realized.

The acting is wonderful. All of the players get into their parts and portray the people they represent. Hank Azaria is wonderful as the delusional Marc Blitzstein, who writes Cradle Will Rock in the film. Harris Yulin gives a great performance and the briefly-seen Congressman Dies. All of the usual suspects: John Cusak, Joan Cusak, Philip Baker Hall, Vanessa Redgrave, Ruben Blades, John Turturro, and Emily Watson give their high caliber performance meeting or exceeding our expectations for their work. The true acting genius comes in the unlikely package of Bill Murray. In the surprise of the film, Bill Murray plays Tommy Crickshaw with a wonderful mix of self-loathing, abandonment and neediness. His character has surprising depth and I never thought I'd be saying he's the man to watch in a film with such talented actors as this.

While the film is not perfect, Cradle Will Rock comes quite close. Outside some historical references that are obscure, the film has moments where its purpose is unclear and it slows the pace. There are much worse uses of your time than this film and if you have children, I highly recommend this as an intelligent, engaging film. There are too few these days.

I must say, I'm impressed by the caliber of work Tim Robbins puts forth writing and directing Cradle Will Rock. This film was vastly underrated in a year of great films, most of which were overlooked.

For other powerful dramas, please visit my reviews of:
Magnolia
The Social Network
The Mission

8.5/10

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

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Clunky Animation And Garbled Music Kill Corpse Bride

The Good: Moments of fun, Good casting
The Bad: Animation isn't the greatest, Not funny, Predictable plot, Music isn't clear
The Basics: When Victor Van Dort accidentally marries a corpse, the viewer is taken on a frantic visual trip to the world of the dead accompanied by mumbled music.


I suppose in the interest of full disclosure, I ought to open the review by saying (for those who have not read my review of it) that I was not a fan of Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas. It didn't grab me. Where I had hoped for dark, quirky and macabre, I just found disappointing and surprisingly childish. It was, therefore, with rather low expectations that I popped in Corpse Bride to evaluate. The short response is that the movie pretty much lived down to my lowered expectations.

When Victor Van Dort, son of new money fishmongers, is pledged to be married to Victoria Everglot, daughter of parents who are poor-as-dirt old money, he seems to have some problems with getting into the spirit of the marriage. While practicing his vows, he accidentally places the ring on the finger of a desiccated corpse who suddenly is reanimated by his commitment to her. She drags him off to the world of the dead and while Victoria is searching for him (and Victor searches for a way home) she is preyed upon by the golddigging Lord Barkis Bittern whose connection to the Corpse Bride is obvious.

Where have you gone, Tim Burton? I'm calling out for the Tim Burton whose genius with Danny Elfman created such dark, dreamy, funny and/or quirky visions as Beetlejuice, Batman, Batman Returns, and the unrelentingly depressing Edward Scissorhands (which still surprises me is not found in more DVD players at the sites of suicides). Burton used to have a writing style and visual sense that was imaginative and unique. He could create creepy, he made action-adventure movies that used dialogue and created character (Batman Returns kicks The Fantastic 4 any day of any week), and he made haunting works that remain with their viewers.

As they say at the climax of The Usual Suspects, "And then like that . . . he's gone!"

I cannot recall the last Tim Burton movie I truly enjoyed. Big Fish didn't live up to my expectations and Charlie And The Chocolate Factory was just disappointment in bright, lush colors. Corpse Bride joins that sad descent in Tim Burton's works and it has a significant number of problems that Charlie And The Chocolate Factory had.

First, what's right; the casting. Tim Burton seems to have found a posse of actors and actresses that he has become comfortable with repeatedly exploiting for his cinematic experiments. Michael Keaton is out of the club, but Johnny Depp remains firmly entrenched, now with Helena Bonham Carter, Christopher Lee, and Deep Roy at his side. Perhaps Corpse Bride was completed using their voice-over talents while on breaks from Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, but either way, Burton has assembled a quality collection of vocal talents. And they do their best with what they are given.

And there are a few moments that are quirky enough to make one smile, though almost exclusively relegated to the world of the dead. Burton, no doubt, is making a statement by keeping the world above in dark, moody grays while down below there are colors and a tremendous sense of movement.

Unfortunately, that ultimately works against the movie when the soundtrack is added. Danny Elfman has created one of his least memorable soundtracks for Corpse Bride, but during the frenetic moments in the world of the dead, the music only serves to jumble already confused, rapid-fire shots that are not effectively creating a world, but rather jerking the viewer through it. Much of the movie ends up feeling like a roller coaster. With some music.

With the animation style being what it is, and I understand it was a rather painstaking process, Corpse Bride ends up looking like a Puff's commercial on acid.

And for a musical, there are remarkably few songs in Corpse Bride. None of them are particularly memorable and, like several of the numbers in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, many of them are jumbled, at least in part. The songs in the underworld all suffer at one point or another from moments where the lyrics are obscured by the music and I had to rewind just to catch lines. This is not an ideal way to make a movie.

But ultimately, the film fails because of the story. None of the characters are particularly interesting. The viewer ultimately does not care whether Victor ends up with Victoria or the Corpse Bride. Whatever sense of jeopardy from Bittern's presence is swallowed up in the absurdly obvious notion that the Everglots are virtually bankrupt.

All in all, this is a disappointment and while we applaud Tim Burton for stretching out in new directions, we wonder when his stretching will result in another work of enduring quality.

For other works by Tim Burton, please check out my reviews of:
Alice In Wonderland
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Big Fish
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Batman Returns
Edward Scissorhands

3/10

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

© 2010, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

Defending Itself Too Late: The Luzhin Defence Finishes Well But Does Little Else.

The Luzhin Defence
The Good: Acting, Characters, Cinematography
The Bad: Slow plot, Pacing issues
The Basics: Despite a dreadful first half in terms of pacing and plot, this chess-heavy film is worth watching for the successes in acting and character too rare in today's films.


The Luzhin Defence is one of those artsy films that does a great job a looking good, having excellent actors playing engaging characters, but loses itself in backstory to the point that by the time the tale becomes interesting, the viewer has way too much work to do to actually care.

Apparently based on a novel by Nabokov (the same who wrote Lolita for those of you keeping track), The Luzhin Defence is concerned with a chess master named Luzhin who is attending the world championship chess match. Winning the series of matches at this chess match will make him world champion, grand master or whatever it's called in chess; this is the World Series of chess.

Luzhin, loosely put, is a loose cannon. He's a whiz at chess, socially inept and easily confused when forced into a context other than a chess match. Upon his meeting Natalia, a young woman whose mother is determined to marry her off, he proposes before asking her name. He's a bit of a crackpot and she's very straightlaced, but she's game for having an eccentric in her life and the two quickly pair up.

If only that were all the film concerned itself with. The chess match and the romance could be sophisticatedly juggled and well arranged. Unfortunately, the film quickly dives into a series of flashbacks concerning Luzhin, his parents and his aunt and his mentor, Valentinov, in an attempt to explain why Luzhin is the way he is. Unfortunately, it ends up confusing the matter entirely and neither story is as well-developed as it could and should be.

Valentinov reappears at the World Chess Championship, entering like the Evil Chess Master to act as a hex for Luzhin. So the film degenerates into a well-paced war between Natalia and Valentinov for control of the unstable Luzhin.

Sigh.

It's hard to write an interesting review of this film because it's not a terribly interesting film. It succeeds in looking incredible. The sets are wonderful, the costumes are nice and the film is filled with nice shots, intriguing angles, you name it. The film has interesting characters; Luzhin and Natalia are interesting people, their motivations make sense. The acting is superlative: John Turturro as Luzhin, Emily Watson as Natalia and Stuart Wilson as Valentinov make up an amazing triumvirate of powerful acting. They flesh out all the flaws in the writing, they make the dull, drops-from-a-leaking-sink pace almost bearable.

Almost. The first half of the film is carried entirely by the quality of the acting and the intrigue of the characters; the plot drags, the flashbacks are tired and uninspired. The second half of the film is enough to make the viewer want to wake up the sleeping audience, elbow your friend and when they ask "Is it still that dreadful movie?" lie and say, "No, it's an entirely different one." In some ways it is; it is focused, precise, interesting, and it rises quickly to a climax.

I'm recommending this film because in the final analysis, it's not a waste of time. It's interesting, it has its moments; unfortunately, they all come in the last half.

For other quirky films or films with offbeat characters, please check out my reviews of:
The Men Who Stare At Goats
Charlie Wilson's War
Year One

5/10

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

© 2010, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |