Good-Looking Mess: Why Alice Through The Looking Glass Fizzles!

The Good: Good effects, Moments of theme, Sacha Baron Cohen
The Bad: Dull plot, Obvious character work, A number of terrible or inconsistent performances
The Basics: Even Johnny Depp's occasional energetic performance cannot save the dismal Alice Through The Looking Glass from its own issues.


Summer Blockbuster Season is, predictably, chock full of sequels. One of the more anticipated and direct sequels to drop in 2016 is Alice Through The Looking Glass, which is a sequel to the live-action Tim Burton film Alice In Wonderland (reviewed here!). Alice Through The Looking Glass has the honor of being the final credited film for the late Alan Rickman and his very minor role in the film bookends his career in an unfortunately mediocre way.

Alice Through The Looking Glass is directed by James Bobin instead of Tim Burton and it reunites most of the cast of Alice In Wonderland. Bobin's work retains the look and feel of Burton's work, at least after its initial straightforward set-up. Alice Through The Looking Glass relies heavily upon information from the first film and stands poorly on its own, making it feel very much like a sequel. Like its predecessor, Alice Through The Looking Glass prioritizes style over substance for the bulk of the film.

Opening in 1874 in the Straits Of Malacca, Alice Kingsleigh is commanding her father's ship as it outruns pursuing pirates. Her skillful maneuvers allow her ship to escape and they return to London safely. In London, Alice discovers that Hamish now runs the company that sent her on the expedition to China and he leverages her boat and home against the young woman. After Hamish's maneuver to get Alice to surrender her ship, Alice follows a butterfly through a mirror to a drawing room in the sky through which she enters Underland. In the magical world of Underland, she learns that the Mad Hatter is not well . . . in a way that is inconsistent with his usual madness.

Meeting with the Hatter, Alice learns that when he found his very first paper hat, the Mad Hatter leapt to the conclusion that if the hat could survive the Jabberwockey attack, then his family must have survived as well. The White Queen, Mirana, sends Alice to Time to use the Chronosphere to rescue the Hatter's family on the day they die and return them to the future to make the Mad Hatter sane and well again. Time rejects Alice's request and when the Red Queen, Iracebeth, arrives, Alice uses the distraction to steal the Chronosphere. Persued by Time into the past, Alice attempts to save the Hatter's family and then prevent the accident which made Iracebeth into a villainess.

Alice Through The Looking Glass is predicated largely on the idea that Alice has a deep love for the Hatter that was hardly indicated in the prior film. The character leap that viewers are asked to take initially is that Alice would risk life, death and the temporal ramifications of time travel to help save the life and, relative, sanity, of the Hatter based on how she feels for him. That emotional bond is not developed in the two films well-enough to be a realistic motivation at the outset.

The film is dominated by style, so the initial problem with character is quickly matched by problems on the acting front. Mia Wasikowska plays Alice and she delivers lines that are strong and emphatic, while having a physical performance based on the same wide-eyed disbelief and uncertainty, which is a troubling acting choice. While she gets eye-lines right for her interactions with virtual characters, she fails to bring anything new or significant to the role of Alice with her acting.

The usually amazing Anne Hathaway is surprisingly bland as Mirana. Hathaway resumes the body language of her prior part, without having the wonderful, strange, off-putting detachment the character had in the first film. While Hathaway's vitality and range of emotional expression play well and fine for the scenes in the past, the scenes in the "present" stand out as problematically incongruent with the established character. Johnny Depp's performance is one of his most bland, with him simply blithely lisping through his lines. With the themes of distant fathers being explored in Alice Through The Looking Glass, Depp's performance seems troublingly derivative of his portrayal of Willy Wonka in Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (reviewed here!).

In fact, the most instantly energized performer in Alice Through The Looking Glass is Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen once again creates an entirely new and different persona for himself as Time. Cohen's Time is weird and awkward and he steals his scenes, even when they are not especially good. Cohen's Time quickly overshadows Helena Bonham Carter's Iracebe to draw the eye and capture the viewer's attention.

Amid lines that play off every cliche about time, Alice Through The Looking Glass tries to marvel the viewer with bright colors and generally-competent computer generated effects. The effects are one of the few things going for the film.

Unfortunately, it is not enough. Alice Through The Looking Glass attempts to blend past and present, reality and Underland, into a story that seeks to both reinvigorate wonder and illustrate the drastic consequences to attempting to change time. It fails to satisfactorily impress or entertain viewers. The result is a good-looking mess that is a poor end to the legacy of Alan Rickman.

For other works with Matt Lucas, please check out my reviews of:
"Thin Ice" - Doctor Who
"The Pilot" - Doctor Who
"The Return Of Doctor Mysterio" - Doctor Who
"The Husbands Of River Song" - Doctor Who
Paddington
Bridesmaids

2/10

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

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Disney Tries (Again) To Maintain Their Pirates Audience With The Lone Ranger!

The Good: Visually enjoyable, William Fichtner
The Bad: Unimaginative performances, Dull plot, Feels long
The Basics: With The Lone Ranger, Disney and Gore Verbinski prove that successful Disney live action adventure movies need more than Johnny Depp and special effects to succeed.


Disney has a strong history of finding what works and milking it until it is bone dry (and the remnants bear little resemblance to the once-noteworthy original work that spawned the franchise). When they hit it big with Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl (reviewed here!), they created a franchise that it is virtually certain they are not done tapping. But, shrewd as they were, the executives at Disney could not duplicate the successful elements of the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise with either Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time (reviewed here!) or John Carter (reviewed here!). So, in going back to the well, it is somewhat unsurprising that they would try for a new franchise that reteams Gore Verbinski (the Pirates director) and Johnny Depp (the franchise’s star). The result is The Lone Ranger.

Even more than the thin plot unified that drags the viewer from one exceedingly bloody encounter to another (very hard PG-13 here!), The Lone Ranger seems like a particularly desperate attempt to make something that viewers might want to keep returning to. They fail. There is nothing particularly original about The Lone Ranger, the peril Tonto is put in is undermined entirely by the narrative technique (which has an aged Tonto telling his story to a boy from a point many years in the future) and it lacks a zest or spark to set it apart from other, already beloved films that have Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter acting goofy. Given the comparatively short resume of Armie Hammer, who plays the title role, it is unsurprising that Tonto dominates the film in order to capitalize on the celebrity of Johnny Depp.

Unfortunately, Depp’s performance has more in common with his character from Dead Man (reviewed here!) than the quotable and wacky Jack Sparrow.

Recounted by Tonto, John Reid – a Harvard lawyer who has come out to the frontier – is with his brother and a group of Rangers when they are ambushed by Butch Cavendish. Cavendish is brutal and rumored to be a cannibal and his attack on Reid and his party confirms his reputation. It is Tonto who rescues John Reid and convinces the young man to don a mask to protect himself and those close to him if he insists on pursuing Cavendish (which Reid does). With his brother dead, nephew and sister-in-law captured, Reid has strong motivation to track down Cavendish. Together, Tonto and the Lone Ranger begin a hunt for Cavendish and his gang.

On the way, they get clues and meet with minor obstacles from Latham Cole and Red Harrington as the negotiate the wild frontier. In avoiding both U.S. military forces and native warriors, Tonto and the Lone Ranger, with their trusty steed Silver, are put on the path to avenge the wronged and save Reid’s remaining family.

The Lone Ranger suffers – in addition from being excessively, often needlessly, bloody – in that it rambles along feeling every minute of the two and a half hours that it is. It lacks real social commentary, despite having the greedy railroad tycoon (Cole, played plausibly enough by master Tom Wilkinson)and a budding conflict between the U.S. and natives. Instead, it focuses on making cheap shots at the inexperienced Reid and occasionally reminding the viewer just how ruthless Cavendish is (he is not one who would team up with the allies in a sequel a la Barbosa in Pirates).

Therein lies one of the few saving graces in The Lone Ranger: William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish. Fichtner is a wonderful character actor and in The Lone Ranger, he presents scene-stealing villainy as the antagonist. Fichtner has a way of setting his eyes that makes them cold and embody evil in a way few actors can. As Cavendish, Fichtner illustrates just how creepy and mean his performances can be and there is not a moment that he appears on screen that the viewer does not fully believe they are watching a stone-cold killer at work.

By contrast, Armie Hammer gives a very white bread performance as John Reid. While he seems fine for the fight sequences, he is bland otherwise as the Lone Ranger. Similarly, Verbinski all but labels Johnny Depp as the point of The Lone Ranger remake by giving him frequent moments that have the actor emoting his disdain, surprise or disappointment with his eyes (mostly for comic effect). The Lone Ranger is a somewhat less talkative Jack Sparrow stuck in the desert and Depp’s performance is not only unsurprising, it is largely uninteresting.

Sadly, that is the state of the entire film The Lone Ranger.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
Oz The Great And Powerful
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Alice In Wonderland
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron

3.5/10

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

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

2012's Holiday Season's Obvious Oscarbait, Les Miserables Lives Up!

The Good: Mostly great acting, Decent music, Good cinematography, Great characters
The Bad: Eddie Redmayne is underwhelming, Pacing
The Basics: The latest cinematic version of Les Miserables may be an obvious grab for awards, but it is worth the accolades given the quality of this interpretation.


A year ago, there was much geeking out in my home. I was excited because of the earliest rumors and information about Prometheus (reviewed here!). My wife, on the other hand, was drooling over the information that was slowly leaking out about Les Miserables, one of her two favorite musicals. I figured I had the best of the year’s worth of anticipation; whether or not the epic I was enthusiastic about met my expectations, I would get a new Anne Hathway film on Christmas day. It was win-win for me (and I was one of the few who still loved Prometheus) and having to not wait until Christmas for new Anne Hathaway made it even better (if you want new Anne Hathaway now, check out the Funny Or Die video with her and Samuel L. Jackson online now!).

Les Miserables is a film based upon the play based upon the novel and it is worth noting that while I have seen the play or read the book, I have seen film and filmed versions of the play. I have also reviewed one of the celebrated soundtracks for the play (that review is here!) and my wife’s enthusiasm for it has certainly made me excited for it. However, I intend to limit this review to the Tom Hooper-directed Les Miserables that seems this season’s most obvious Oscarbait.

Unlike Chicago (reviewed here!) from a few years ago, Les Miserables is a musical that is presented as a film with its own reality. This is not a “play on film” like Chicago was. The musical interludes are a way to present emotions, exposition, and create mood, as opposed to intentionally replicating a theatrical (play) event. And, while Les Miserables is obvious Oscarbait, it manages not to fall into the same problem as Mystic River (reviewed here!) where there is predictable greatness. While I am tempted to say that anything that features Anne Hathaway is stacking the casting deck, the truth is she has a more extensive cinematic resume of romantic comedies, as opposed to deep dramas (though the dramas she has been in have been ones that show her easily able to handle an incredible range and a wide variety of situations). Moreover, Hugh Jackman has had some real cinematic lemons, as have Sacha Baron Cohen . . . and Russell Crowe is frequently typecast and used for a very limited range of character. Fortunately, on Les Miserables, the cast is used extraordinarily well and, with the exception of Redmayne, who is overshadowed in virtually every scene by his red-coated costar Aaron Tveit, in ways that they are not frequently captured on film.

Les Miserables is a story of one man’s struggles and strife amid the backdrop of the French Revolution. Having stolen a loaf of bread to feed his family, Jean Valjean is imprisoned for the crime and his attempt to flee prosecution. When Valjean, on parole after nineteen years of hard time, steals from the local bishop, the Bishop vouches for him to the authorities and Valjean is given a second chance to live right. Valjean becomes a respected citizen, mayor, and factory owner after years of being on the outside. Working at one of his factories is Fantine, a young woman who has turned to prostitution on the side in order to feed her baby daughter. Rescued from Inspector Javert following a conflict at Valjean’s factory, Fantine dies of tuberculosis.

Despite Valjean exposing himself to Javert to prevent an innocent man from being accused of being Valjean and having Javert’s wrath taken out on him, Valjean promises to return to Javert’s custody after he makes arrangements for Fantine’s daughter, Cosette. Valjean betrays Javert and takes Cosette on the run from the law. Years later, having raised Cosette as his own, revolution comes to France. Cosette finds herself embroiled in a love triangle with a revolutionary boy and Valjean has the chance to forgive Javert for a lifetime of pursuit when the revolutionaries are going to put Javert to death for being a spy.

Les Miserables is an epic and it is extraordinary. As a film, Les Miserables is presented by director Tom Hooper in a way that uses the medium exceptionally well. The locations are big and the sense of time passing is executed well on the actors, sets, and costumes. Keeping largely with the theatrical version, the cinematic Les Miserables includes comic relief in the form of the Thenardiers. While Madame Thenardier is well within the range or Helena Bonham Carter, her husband is portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen does an impressive job of being more restrained than in most of his other roles and while he makes the role work, this rendition of Les Miserables doies not actually need that entire subplot and set of characters. In fact, while plays like Les Miserables judiciously mix humor and drama to keep from being too heavy and to allow for sets to be changed, in this version of Les Miserables, the presence of the Thenardiers is more distracting (though they do add another viewpoint on the Revolution) than necessary.

Musically, Les Miserables is enjoyable, though my wife informs me the soundtrack is altered some to fit the ranges of the performers (most notably Hathaway). As one not tied to the original play or soundtrack, I have to say it all sounded wonderful. Jackman makes for an amazing Jean Valjean in his vocalizations and Samantha Barks is wrenching as Eponine. Les Miserables sounds wonderful with the vocal performances that do add additional depth to the characters.

Russell Crowe did not wow me as Javert, but he fit the bill for in-character stiff in a way that worked surprisingly well. Javert is supposed to be obsessed and rigid in his determination to find Valjean and enforce law and order over any understanding of human emotions. Crowe fits the bill for that. Crowe presents Javert as somewhat robotic and he stands out next to how Anne Hathaway takes a bit role and fills it with hearthbreaking pathos or Jackman as Valjean, who is so good that he makes viewers forget how he ever growled his way through Wolverine. Even Amanda Seyfried is able to display uncommon range and emotion as Cosette that makes the character more than a simple love interest for Marius. Seyfried, Barks, Cohen, Hathaway and Jackman are so explosively dynamic that they shine so bright to make Crowe seem stiffer and blander by comparison.

Les Miserables is a cinematic musical that transcends its source material to use the film medium extraordinarily well. Hooper creates a distinct time, place and mood that feels appropriately epic. While “epic” is, by nature, long, great direction can keep such a film moving along. Unfortunately, Hooper misses some key marks – especially in keeping truer to the play by giving the Thenardiers their due – and the film feels long.

That said, Jean Valjean is presented as an intriguing and sufficiently deep character to invite the investment of time and energy in his journey. Les Miserables might be a long film telling a great story with interesting characters, released at the time of year as appropriate to get most of the people involved nominated for big awards, but it is worth it and enjoyable, even when it is heartbreaking for the way it portrays the depth of human suffering.

For works featuring Anne Hathaway, please check out my reviews of:
Anne Hathaway For Wonder Woman!
The Dark Knight Rises
One Day
Rio
Love And Other Drugs
Family Guy Presents: It's A Trap!
Alice In Wonderland
Valentine's Day
Twelfth Night Soundtrack
Bride Wars
Rachel Getting Married
Passengers
Get Smart
Becoming Jane
The Devil Wears Prada
Havoc
Hoodwinked!
Brokeback Mountain
The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement
Ella Enchanted
Nicholas Nickleby
The Other Side Of Heaven
The Princess Diaries

8.5/10

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

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

Cramming Five Years Of Horror Soap Opera Into A Two Hour “Comedy,” Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows Fizzles.

The Good: Decent plot, Moments of character
The Bad: Tries to service too many characters/plotlines, Nothing stellar on the acting front, Promotions spoiled almost all of the humor.
The Basics: Dark Shadows is resurrected by Tim Burton as a very mediocre horror/comedy that satisfies on neither front.


Dark Shadows is, admittedly, a tough franchise to take over. The campy mid-1960s-early 1970s horror soap opera has a cult following earned by being highly original at the time it made its debut. But the show was a soap opera and, as such, went through several incarnations and a whole slew of characters. Any attempt to resurrect Dark Shadows ran the danger of offending the fanbase that would be predisposed to go see such a film and isolating the general public who might be wary of a horror soap opera. So, fundamentally, Tim Burton seems to be doing all he can to balance the conflicting potential audiences with the new film Dark Shadows. What we are forced to acknowledge with Dark Shadows, though, is that not every balancing act is successful.

Dark Shadows is presented by Tim Burton as an inconsistent horror-comedy, much like Arachnophobia attempted to innovate over twenty years ago. Unfortunately, Burton’s stacked deck, utilizing his usual players Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Christopher Lee (for a cameo), and trading on the predictable draw of skinny blondes Eva Green, Bella Heathcote, and Chloe Grace Moretz fumbles its mixed potential. Dark Shadows is crowded and more often sloppy, with so many underdeveloped aspects that it is hard to imagine many of the fans being pleased by the film.

Before getting into more specifics, it is worth acknowledging that Tim Burton did what he could with the tools given to him. Restarting Dark Shadows as a film franchise is a Herculean task in many ways. Indeed, many of the diehard fans that Burton had to please with the film might be reluctant to acknowledge that Barnabas Collins – arguably the prime reason Dark Shadows survived and had a popular following at all – did not arrive for almost a hundred episodes. The original Dark Shadows listed lazily along for months until it found its legs and was headed in a direction that fans were engaged by. So, doing a pure reboot of Dark Shadows was never really an option, especially as a cinematic endeavor.

Even so, there were a lot of avenues a Dark Shadows reboot could have gone in (one of the most imaginative would have been to start it with the Leviathan plotline or a full film with one of the many Collins family backstory arcs) and Burton went with arguably the most obvious. By focusing on Barnabas Collins, Tim Burton banks on the most popular potential avenue of Dark Shadows and when the film focuses on the struggle between Barnabas and Angelique, the movie is viewable, if not in any way enduringly great. The problem that predominates Burton’s Dark Shadows is that he tries to service all of the characters and the film ends up feeling like a second-rate retread of The Addams Family.

In Colonial America, the Collins family arrives to establish their fishing business. Building an entire town, the Collins family prospers and Collinsport thrives due to their influence. But young Barnabas Collins spurns the wrong woman when he rejects the servant girl Angelique in favor of Josette. Angelique, who is a very powerful witch, kills Barnabas’s parents and uses her magic to have Josette walk off a cliff to die on the rocks below Collinwood. When Barnabas leaps to follow her, Angelique curses him, transforming him into a vampire who cannot die. When that does not bring Barnabas to her, Angelique rallies the townspeople and they bury Barnabas.

Almost two hundred years later, in 1972, the Collins family is in decline, with Elizabeth running the nearly abandoned Collinwood and presiding over the remnants of the family. Roger Collins, a widower, is raising his son David (who sees his mother’s ghost) and Elizabeth hired Victoria Winters to act as nanny and tutor. Also occupying Collinwood are Elizabeth’s daughter Carolyn, the psychotherapist Dr. Julia Hoffman, and the groundskeeper, Willie Loomis. When a dig unearths Barnabas, the vampire feeds and returns to Collinwood where he makes himself known to Elizabeth.

Elizabeth allies herself with Barnabas on the hope that his plans to revitalize the family business will work. But almost immediately, Angelique – who has survived and been bleeding the Collins family business dry as their main competitor – learns of Barnabas’s return and she sets out to win him over. Failing to lure him away from his interest in Victoria, who appears to be Josette resurrected, Angelique sets out to destroy the Collins family once and for all.

Right off the bat, it is worth noting that Dark Shadows as a comedy reinvention of the campy soap opera original is almost entirely ruined by the promotional campaign surrounding the movie. Tim Burton did not have a bad idea when he tried to transform something that was arguably hokey into a comedy, but the advertisements spoiled almost all of the humor by revealing most of the film’s jokes! The result is that those who have seen the trailers have seen most of the comedy, are unsurprised by it, and are left with a stiff horror that is more cluttered than ever scary or intriguing in its supernatural elements. The exception to this is in the character of Willie Loomis. Willie’s presence in Dark Shadows is firmly rooted in the comedic and the best unspoiled lines of the film are all delivered by him.

Unfortunately, spoiling the film – or presenting it through advertising as one type of film when it is much more of a blend – ends up as only one problem. Within the movie itself, Dark Shadows tries to take on too much. While it is clear that the writers Seth Grahame-Smith and John August have a clear knowledge of the original Dark Shadows, they try to cram pretty much all they know into one movie. This would be like making an NCIS movie wherein the film tried to incorporate everyone’s favorite moments into one movie. It simply doesn’t work.

As a result, the Josette/Victoria character and plot arc is sacrificed to a somewhat ridiculous ball scene featuring Alice Cooper. Dr. Julia Hoffman, established as a drunkard and a believer in the paranormal, ends up cut ridiculously fast (Hoffman’s attempt to cure Barnabas of his vampirism was a multi-week arc in the original show) and Carolyn’s supernatural revelation is revealed as if it were an afterthought. Saving any of these plotlines for a subsequent movie could have made the conflict between Angelique and Barnabas a more focused and compelling plot. As it is, though, the Victoria Winters aspect of the film seems more like a convenient plot device by which Angelique manipulates Barnabas and adds a slight bump in the character conflict to the climax of the movie.

The acting in Dark Shadows is entirely unsurprising. Johnny Depp plays Barnabas Collins virtually identically to how he has played any number of prior outsider characters (usually in Tim Burton films!). Similarly, Helena Bonham Carter gives us nothing new and Michelle Pfeiffer returns to the Burton fold in a vastly less memorable way than her performance of Selena Kyle in Batman Returns. Eva Green is largely just a pretty face (throughout much of the film, she seemed to simply be channeling Alice Eve) and Bella Heathcote’s bland performance of Victoria was not enough to make me look up any other film she has been in.

The only real surprise from the acting is from Jackie Earle Haley. Haley, who came to my attention as the intense anti-hero Rorschach in Watchmen (reviewed here!) before taking up the mantle of Freddy Krueger in A Nightmare On Elm Street (reviewed here!) pulls off comedy well in Dark Shadows. Willie Loomis is a dimwit and Jackie Earle Haley plays him as a slow, somewhat moronic character exceptionally well. He is the only real reason to sit through Dark Shadows

Alas, it is not enough. Dark Shadows is still on the underside of average movies and it is unsurprising that it is being met with a lukewarm response. Even Tim Burton fans, who might appreciate the color contrast, but lament the otherwise lacking sense of Burton’s surrealism, are likely to be unimpressed by Dark Shadows.

For other works with Chloe Grace Moretz, please check out my reviews of:
Hugo
Kick-Ass
Bolt

4/10

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

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

Why The Harry Potter Collection Isn't All It Ought To Be.

The Good: Movies get better and better, Decent effects, Good overall story
The Bad: Glaring plot and character problems, Lack of consistent effects (especially retroactively)
The Basics: Despite what legions of fans of the Harry Potter franchise might want, the Harry Potter Ultimate Collection is not the greatest cinematic triumph of all time.


I never intended to get into or watch the Harry Potter movies. Then, like magic, I fell in love and the woman I fell in love with was a big fan of the franchise. She had read all of the Harry Potter books and when we got together, the franchise wasn't quite over, so I ended up going through the movies that were out and then the new movies as they came out. The movie franchise has grossed billions of dollars and has a hugely loyal following, so I'm not exactly expecting to light the world on fire with my considerations of the Harry Potter Collection, but for those with an open mind or coming late to the party - as I did - there are some very helpful notes I can provide on the franchise.

First, it is worth noting that I have considered each of the Harry Potter films on their own. Those reviews, which are the substantive content of The Harry Potter Collection, are at:
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Furthermore, it bears repeating that I have not read the books upon which this movie franchise is based and as such, this is a very pure review of the movie franchise. I've heard innumerable times in comments to my film reviews, "well, in the book . . .": This is NOT a review of the book series, it is the film series as it stands up on its own.

Harry Potter is deposited as an infant on the doorstep of his aunt and uncle, the Dursley's, where he is raised as the lesser child. Forced to live under the stairs, he is surprised on his eleventh birthday when he is invited to go study at Hogwart's School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Previously unaware of his family's magical talents, he is taken under the wing of Rubeus Hagrig who helps him get school supplies and sends him on his way to the private magical school. En route, he meets the poor, bumbling Ron Weasley and the brilliant, booksmart Hermione Granger. Together, the three are inducted into the same House in Hogwart's and they begin studying magic. Harry draws the attention of the school's headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, who was instrumental in saving Harry's life the night his parents were killed.

Harry begins to study magic with those around him convinced there is something special about him, more than just the scar on his forehead. Soon, it becomes clear to Harry that he is special; he is the only known survivor of an attack by the great evil, Lord Voldemort. Voldemort, it appears, was killed, but still has followers in our world. Throughout the years, clues emerge that the followers of Voldemort, the Death Eaters, are working to bring the dark lord back to Earth and that Harry Potter has a connection to him. As the forces of evil gather, Harry is tutored in magic to meet his destiny: to stop the dark lord from destroying the magical world and enslaving the human (Muggle) world.

The Harry Potter collection has all eight movies at they were originally released and the Blu-Ray version features so many bonus features, it makes the extended editions of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy look anemic. Each of the movies, save the last two, has been released as three-disc ultimate collector's editions with additional bonus features and collectible materials and one suspects that there will be an Ultimate Collection which bundles the super-expensive, ultra-packed versions of all eight films together. But for most people, the Harry Potter Collection with the movies, deleted scenes, trailers and featurettes will be enough.

What is worth watching in the set? First, the movies do tend to get better and better, both with storytelling elements and the acting. The first film hinges more on the fact that there was a built-in audience than making a great movie, so it stands poorly on its own, even as an establishing work. Similarly, in the first sequel, were it not for the exceptionally important plot event that occurs within the Chamber Of Secrets, it would be hard to advise anyone sit through the movie. But, the Harry Potter Saga is largely a mystery wherein Harry learns more and more about his potential in each film and then has to confront the ultimate evil.

But therein lies the first strike against the cinematic franchise. The fundamental story is one of a boy being raised to take on the great evil of the age. That is a classic hero story and it could be epic. The problem with this particular epic is that how it is accomplished makes no real sense. Harry Potter is taught incrementally what he needs to know in order to fight the Dark Lord and those around him retain secrets as opposed to being as clear, direct and forthright as possible. In other words, the writer of the Harry Potter Saga was much more concerned with selling the next book than telling a story that makes sense.

What do I mean by this? Harry Potter is seen by Dumbledore, Hagrid, Serius Black, Minerva McGonagall and virtually everyone else in Hogwart's (and the adversaries fighting on the side of Lord Voldemort) as the one chance the magical world has to take down and destroy the evil of the age. Rather than groom the boy and have him prepared to confront the Deatheaters and Voldemort, the forces of good are scattered and only intimate to Harry what he needs to know. This would be most analogous to Obi-Wan and Yoda only telling Luke Skywalker about one or two aspects of the Force in the Star Wars Trilogy or only training him to use a lightsaber, without ever informing him of the Dark Side, the nature of the Force or that Darth Vader was someone he would have to confront. Or, from the fantasy realm, this would be like Gandalf discovering the nature of the One Ring, finding it with Bilbo and then having Frodo wander around with the ring without ever telling him where to go or what to do with it. Despite what fans of the Harry Potter franchise might want to believe, the mechanisms of the storytelling are ridiculous in that it is not until the sixth year and in the wake of the resurrection of Voldemort that the existence and nature of the Horcruxes are revealed. It's pretty shoddy storytelling to have a small army of people who claim to be good who refuse to tell their soldiers how they can actually take on the enemy. Even a "hey, if you ever see, hear about or encounter this thing, let us know," would be better than the ignorance with which Dumbledore keeps his followers. And while some might say that Dumbledore didn't want to insight a panic or scare Harry, I respectfully submit that the time to stop evil is before it materializes, has legions of followers and takes over the world.

Moreover, the Harry Potter Saga become muddied by time travel elements and interpersonal elements that do not flow organically in the films. So, while viewers can clearly see the arc by which Hermione and Ron Weasley overcome obstacles to develop an eventual romantic relationship, the development of a relationship between Harry Potter and Ron's sister is much less organic in the films.

The real strike against the ultimate Harry Potter Collection is the fidelity to the original as opposed to creating a unified Saga. The eight films were directed by four different directors and, truth be told, they didn't know exactly what they were doing all along. The technology exists now to fix up the technical issues in the making of the films and it would do a great service to the fans to do that. I'm not talking about rewriting the movies or even replacing Richard Harris, who unfortunately died between the second and third films, with Michael Gambon who played the part for the rest of the franchise. But, Griphook in the first film and the goblins look nothing at all like what they do near the end of the franchise and unlike the changes George Lucas made to the Star Wars Saga, changes like replacing characters who appear late in the movie series by inserting the refined look to the character types in the early films would lend a greater sense of continuity. When I was reviewing this year's Golden Snitch ornament (that's here!), I noticed even practical effects like the Golden Snitch were redesigned. How is this problematic? Well, Harry receives that magical object in the penultimate film and viewers are asked to recognize it as an identical object to the one in the first film when it is not.

Despite the storytelling problems - and it was only as I wrote this consideration of the entire story that it truly hit me how woefully unprepared Harry is for no good reason other than to drag the story out for more movies - and a few niggling character issues, the Harry Potter Saga tells an interesting story. And, despite the gripe, it is a more engaging story than it might have been had Harry simply been tutored at the very beginning with all he needed to know. The characters do get developed, though it takes several films.

What the Harry Potter Saga does exceptionally well is develop the acting talents of three young actors who grow into the iconic roles as their characters grow. Teamed up with established great actors like Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith and Kenneth Brannagh, actors Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson hone their talents from painfully awkward children into powerhouse adult actors who can take on virtually any role that is given to them.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Harry Potter Collection includes all eight films, their trailers and limited bonus features. Warner Brothers, which produced the Harry Potter Saga, has shown a complete willingness to exploit its audience. With Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, over half a dozen different exclusive packages were developed to get fans to rebuy the same source material for the exclusive bonus features. By that logic, there will come a time when Warner Brothers sees the point in investing to do refurbished editions of each film wherein the Saga is corrected for effects continuity. Will it be worth the buy? Not if you already have the current Saga. Will it be a better film series? Yes. I say hold out, at least, until all of the Ultimate Editions are bundled together in an exclusive, space-saving package!

For other epic fantasy or science fiction series', be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Star Wars Saga
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
The Indiana Jones Trilogy

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.
| | |

Ack, No! Another Victorian Film Like the Rest! A Room With A View

The Good: Acting, I suppose, Scenery
The Bad: Predictable plot, Lack of distinct characters, Divisions in scenes
The Basics: A Room With A View is a dreadfully dull film that is plagued by being easy to watch, but impossible to care about the people involved.


There's a distinct period of British literature I find deplorable because it comprises almost a complete century of works where every author tells the same story. I mean almost literally, the same exact story. What differentiates these works is the characters. The most enduring of these works (Villette, Jane Eyre) have stronger characters that are laced with deeper levels that come out in the work. Unfortunately, the film A Room With A View offers no such distinction.

A Room With A View is an explicitly set work (every time the setting changes, there is a break in the film with a placard informing the viewer where the action is now and who is in the scene) surrounding Lucy Honeychurch. Lucy begins her journey in Florence, Italy, where she meets other British people on vacation. One of these individuals is George Emerson. George is a brooding man who ponders the world until Lucy's mere presence in his life opens him up to there being more in life than thought and the pain of the world. So, he kisses Lucy.

This inspires the young Lucy to return to England, where she promptly engages herself to Cecil. Sound abrupt? Well, it seems abrupt in the film as well. I sat watching wondering WHY?! It seemed such a drastic action. But that's Olde England with all of its emotional repression customs. Fortunately, this is dealt with explicitly in the film. Cecil is a bore and a bookworm and when George moves in near Lucy's family, she realizes what we've all figured out: that George and Lucy work better together and they ought to be married.

What works is the acting. Daniel Day-Lewis plays the dry Cecil wonderfully, a complete contrast to other characters I've seen him play. He is stuffy and repressed and plays Cecil up for all he is. Too bad there's not much of him to play up. Helena Bonham Carter portrays Lucy well. She's convincing as a youth of a changing England. Julian Sands plays George competently and Judi Dench plays the somewhat-annoying Miss Lavish perfectly. The scene stealer is also the only decent character: Mr. Emerson who is played with humor and vitality by Denholm Elliott. His scenes are a pleasure to watch as he is a radical and actually lives. He's like a post-epiphany Lester Burnham and it's nice to see that. Miss Lavish is similar, but played as an egotist.

The scenery is nice as well.

What doesn't work is that none of the characters (outside Mr. Emerson) are interesting, captivating, or even enough to keep the plot going at a reasonable pace. The direction is nothing to shout about and the plot has been done to death. Moreover, I found the breaks between scenes that explicitly set up the next scene like chapter titles distracting and detrimental to the flow of the film.

As a final note, this film is unrated, at least the old VCR tape I was watching. I suspect that has to do with the single scene in which three men are running around naked. Outside that, the film is G. With that, it's still no big deal.

For other films featuring Helena Bonham-Carter, please visit my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1
The King's Speech
Alice In Wonderland
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Terminator: Salvation
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Corpse Bride
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Big Fish
Fight Club

3/10

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

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

| | |

I Open At The Close: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 Is The One Where Everything Happens!

The Good: Special effects, Character moments, Acting, Plot resolution.
The Bad: Very dependent upon prior installments/Final scene.
The Basics: Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 finally arrives to cap off the journey of Harry Potter and his magical friends in a firefight that must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated.


I suspect the reason that so many reviews of the new, final, Harry Potter Saga film Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 degenerates quickly into a discussion of the Harry Potter franchise rather than sticking to the content of this film is because it is the culmination of a serialized story. The challenge of reviewing just the most anticipated cinematic event since The Phantom Menace (reviewed here!) is that the film is all about tying up the loose ends. This movie is about making the final reveals, the final missions and the ultimate resolution between the potentially epic battle between young Harry Potter and the lord of evil, Voldemort. So, by its very nature, a review of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is either going to be full of spoilers or utterly indecipherable to those just beginning the series. I lean a little more toward the former, as the end of the Harry Potter Saga has to be more like The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (reviewed here!); going in virtually everyone knows that the One Ring will be destroyed, the pleasure of the Trilogy is in seeing how it is done. Similarly, Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is a film where the "how" is more important to the fans than the "what." And it has been worth the wait.

It bears noting that while the cinematic release of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 might well be the release of a generation, I am not of the Harry Potter Generation. My wife is, but I am not. While she has read all of the books and followed the franchise religiously, I only got into watching the movies when she and I met (I had actually intended to go through this life without getting into this franchise). But, if there is any review you can read that is unencumbered by the books to evaluate the movie, this is it. And before I even begin with the analysis, I'd just like to remind those who have not yet read my review of Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban (that's here!) that right off the back, my objection to the problem of time travel raised in that film is only compounded here. The series is, as far as I am concerned, a complete wash because of the issues there. Forgetting them for the purpose of this review (this is the last time I ask "Where the hell is the time turner now?!" I swear!), Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is pretty damn impressive.

With the evil Lord Voldemort acquiring the Elder Wand from the tomb of Dumbledore, Snape ascending to the Headmaster position at Hogwart's, and Harry Potter and his friends burying their dead at the cottage home of Ron's older brother, the world looks grim for magicusers and muggles alike. Griphook, the goblin, rescued by Harry offers Harry and his team the opportunity to find the next Horcrux in the vault of Bellatrix Lestrange. So, disguised as Bellatrix, Hermione with Ron, Griphook and Harry in tow, infiltrates the magical vaults at Gringgott's to try to find the next object that houses a piece of Voldemort's soul. They discover a chalice inside the vault and have to fight their way out of the magical repository with the help of an enslaved dragon. The trio then heads to Hogwart's in search of another Horcrux that Harry is given a vision of thanks to his connection to Voldemort. At Hogwart's, Harry deposes Snape with the help of McGonagall and students loyal to the cause.

As the last loyalists arrive to defend Hogwart's, Harry goes on a frantic search for what he believes to be the penultimate Horcrux as Hogwart's is besieged by Voldemort and his followers. With Neville Longbottom, McGonagall, Luna, Flitwick and the assorted Weasleys (among others), Harry Potter resists the Deatheaters and Voldemort over an exceptionally dangerous night. But when dawn comes, Voldemort disposes of one of his most valuable assets, which allows Harry to finally learn the truth about his own existence and the methods that will allow him to overcome Voldemort once and for all!

There is a lot of exposition in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and most of it will mean nothing to those who have not seen the prior films. Similarly, the final scene - which is all I had a real beef with in the film - will mean almost nothing to those who have not read the books. My wife turned to me after the movie (she loved it!), and said, "In the last scene, they could have made clear that X - that curly headed boy - was the son of Y and Z." She said the names, they aren't important, but to list casualties are spoilers I won't write for this review! My point here is that the last scene doesn't progress the story or add anything to the film series. Sure, it's in the books and it is a better way to leave the series than the bridge scene that precedes it, but the real "magic" of what it should be is lacking for those who are not obsessive fans of the books.

That said, there was only one other real problem with Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 and that was it was frequently rushed. In the effort to limit how long over two hours the movie clocked out at, scenes had the feeling of being truncated. So, for example, the dragon that has been chained below Gringgott's for an indeterminate but presumably long time stumbles once and the next cut is it flying perfectly. There is an intermediate moment when it stumbles from walking where it presumably fails to fly right for the first time that is absent. So, like other movies where the fans could handle longer - like Star Trek: Nemesis - one presumes that there are many extended scenes that would have enriched the flow of the movie.

Outside that, the movie is perfect. For a long while, I was considering this a 10/10, but that last scene and a few niggling inconsistencies robbed it of perfection for me. There are some nice ways the movie glosses over its own faults, like Harry asking Hermione if any plan they've ever made has actually worked, so they go planless because they know all hell will break loose, but the film lacks that spark that makes a movie perfect. It's very close, though.

In Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, the characters are mature and sensible. Harry Potter, for example, asks the wandmaker every conceivable question about the Elder Wand, short of "Would you recognize the wand if you saw it?" Ron is only goofy once and the rest of the time is surprisingly smart and sensible. Dumbledore's alluded-to brother, Amberforth shows up and becomes a fully-realized character in his brief scenes. Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is not afraid to let the minor characters shine and Neville Longbottom's role overshadows Hermione's in the "substantial contribution" department in this film. Even Ron's mother has a great character moment that allowed her to grow and impress viewers.

In a similar fashion, the acting in Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 is flawless. Tom Felton is cold and anguished as Malfoy, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are finally given scenes which give their Ron and Hermione actual chemistry and Warwick Davis plays two bit roles with scene-stealing proficiency. Alan Rickman is finally given an opportunity to make Severus Snape likable, not just sensible, and he does not waste the chance. Instead, Rickman brings a humanity to the character with a performance that comes through in the eyes with full emotional impact. Ralph Fiennes continues to make Voldemort creepy and when he has to play vulnerability, he, too, does some great emoting through the eyes.

But the film rests largely on the performance by Daniel Radcliffe and he lands the role as Harry Potter. Radcliffe plays Potter as a fully-realized young adult and he has the posture of a man who is on a righteous cause. His performance eliminates the uncertainty of the early films, plays flawlessly with the digital constructs and does everything a great performance ought to.

One might hope there would be more analysis, but it is impossible to do without spoilers or degenerating into a discussion of the entire series. What I will - and should - say is this. Within fifteen minutes of the opening of Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, director David Yates accomplished something that no one else involved in the Harry Potter franchise aside from my wife has ever done; he made me care about the story, the characters, the resolutions. I felt throughout this movie and I cared, which is something I hadn't before. In Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2, I became invested in this magical world and how the characters might overcome the Big Evil. Outside, peeking occasionally at my wife to enjoy her enthralled reaction, I was glued to the screen and that is a huge accomplishment and one of the best possible endorsements I can give the movie.

For other films in the Harry Potter franchise, please check out my reviews of:
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my index page with a full, organized listing of the movie reviews I have done (over 700 now!) by clicking here!

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

A Terminator Without Arnold Is Remarkably Average Action-Adventure: Terminator Salvation.

The Good: Decent acting, Moments of plot
The Bad: Predictable plot, General lack of character development/originality
The Basics: In a VERY weak "recommend," the stiflingly average Terminator Salvation makes for passable entertainment, but nothing to spend much time at all thinking about.


A few years back while on the road for a Star Trek convention, a fan asked Robert Picardo - who played the Emergency Medical Hologram on Star Trek: Voyager - about the candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Picardo wisely said that his hope for the potential governor would be that (if elected) Schwarzenegger would help restore Hollywood to a moviemaking capital of the world. Picardo's logic was pretty sound; Hollywood built Schwarzenegger as an actor, but in the years since his rise as an actor, taxes and codes had made the studio town the bane of many a production company's existence. Los Angeles was no longer THE place to shoot a movie or television series and instead, places like Vancouver became popular filming locations in the 1990s. One wonders how Picardo would feel about Terminator Salvation being filmed mostly (according to the closing credits) in Albuquerque. Considering that this episode in the Terminator film franchise utilizes the current governor of California minimally, one supposes Schwarzenegger has little to worry about in this regard.

That said, director McG and writers John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris have very little to be excited about with Terminator Salvation either. Having caught a screening of the film, the overwhelming feeling at the end of the film was that it was a startlingly average film. My wife, who had never seen a Terminator film before was unimpressed by this installment and her comment at the end was "I'm glad we didn't pay to see that" and "I'm not going to look up the other three movies now." For its part, Terminator Salvation opens well enough, but quickly devolves into a remarkably average action-adventure film where the most enjoyable moments almost all come as a result of callbacks to past films in the franchise (though none were as extreme as my hoped-for cameo with all of the past actors playing John Connor appearing, say, in a bar . . .). I had prepared for the film by reading the prequel graphic novel Sand In The Gears (reviewed here!) and was a bit disappointed by how little bearing that had on the movie.

In 2018, the bombs have gone off, humanity has been virtually decimated by the SkyNet machines and the few pockets of remaining humans have organized into the Resistance, led by John Connor. The thing is, back in 2003, a killer named Marcus Wright was put to death by lethal injection, after signing his body over to a doctor working for SkyNet. Shortly after an attack on a SkyNet facility - where John Connor is the lone Resistance survivor - Marcus Wright turns up naked on the battlefield, disoriented and wanders to Los Angeles. As John Connor and his Resistance cell organize for a final assault on SkyNet as the result of a shutoff signal that might well stop every single SkyNet machine, Marcus begins a journey of his own.

Wright's journey puts him in the company of Kyle Reese, a man who is supposed to be sent back in time to become John Connor's father. Reese and his ward, Star, find themselves captured by machines shortly after Wright turns up and Marcus's search for answers take him in the direction of SkyNet. On that search, he encounters John Connor and both Connor and Wright learn a terrible secret about the herding of humans by the SkyNet machines . . .

. . . only, it's not much of a secret because all of the final trailers for the film ruin Wright's secret. Seriously, any potential for greatness that Terminator Salvation ever had was completely crushed by the fact that Wright's secret is revealed in the previews. In a movie where the Terminators are exactly where one expects them to be based on framing (i.e. even my wife who had never seen one of these films knew the active Terminator was right behind the one on the assembly line) the subtlety of moments is ruined when the viewer has mere seconds between the intelligent revelation and the explicit reveal. And that the explicit reveal made it into the preview trailers is reprehensible on the part of the advertisers. They gut the emotion of the moment and of the film.

That said, the plot has virtually all of the expected "Terminator" moments. There are fights, car chases, a few catchphrases that pop up. The only innovative cameo is the use of the song "You Could Be Mine" within the film. Outside that, the cameos are surprisingly bland and generally obvious. Strangely, I was the only one in the theater to react to the first mention of Kyle Reese, whose name is first dropped when John Connor is put at the #2 position on SkyNet's most wanted list. Kyle Reese's story is told in The Terminator.

Only, it is also told in this film. Terminator Salvation is essentially the story of three men, past, present and future: Marcus Wright, John Connor, and Kyle Reese. Marcus Wright had his day and is living his second chance, John Connor is living his prophesied potential and Kyle Reese is just coming into his own. Wright's story is interesting, but he was cast far too close to the look of the new John Connor, Christian Bale. Those looking for any deepening of the storyline between John and Kate Connor will have to wait; Kate shows up pregnant, but does almost nothing for the course of the almost two hours.

Worse yet is that Marcus Wright is hardly interesting. He takes the role - in terms of screentime and character arc - that is traditionally held by the adversary (Terminator) and his relationship with Blair is hardly engaging. Instead, they seem to be the most active male and female on the screen, so the camera stays on them. Unfortunately, here is where the film becomes absolutely dumb. Wright enters the Connor Resistance Cell, pretty much begging those there to let him go so he can go to San Francisco to find someone at SkyNet. Neither Connor nor his people bother to ask him who he is searching for or why. At least none of the humans look surprised when Blair breaks Wright out. Connor is at least that smart, fortunately.

The real winner of the film, though, is actor Anton Yelchin as Kyle Reese. Yelchin is having a pretty exceptional month as an actor, whatwith charming audiences as the child prodigy Pavel Chekov in the film Star Trek (reviewed here!) and now picking up the mantle of Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation. Yelchin earns his chops by perfectly picking up some of the mannerisms and vocal characteristics of Michael Biehn, who originated the role in The Terminator. Yelchin steals the screen often enough from both Bale and Sam Worthington, who plays Wright.

Worthington is a decent-enough heavy, but he only shines when he is on screen opposite Moon Bloodgood (Blair) or on his own. Put beside Yelchin or Bale and he seems far less impressive. In fact, he only has one truly great bit of emoting in the film and to discuss it is to ruin the surprise for the few who have not yet seen the trailers. As for Christian Bale, he does a good job as John Connor. Personally, I enjoyed the prior take on Connor as an unlikely man living in disbelief of his destiny trying to scrape together a life off the grid. Nick Stahl made for a convincing antihero and an unlikely leader of the resistance. Bale is much more obvious, overt and military in his bearing and as a result, he sells the new John Connor just fine.

The problem, as it often is in these type movies, is that Terminator Salvation plays fast and loose with the continuity and the character of John Connor is an awkward constant/inconsistency. But as far as the film on its own merits goes . . . this moves away from being smart or complex science fiction into pretty mindless action-adventure pretty quickly. And for that, it is adequate. But with so many smarter options on the big screen right now, it is hard to get excited about this one. See it free, if possible.

For the other "Terminator" films, please check out my reviews of:
The Terminator
Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Terminator 3: The Rise Of The Machines

5.5/10

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

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Edward Norton Fights For Top Billing In Fight Club

The Good: Well written, good plot, good characters, fine acting, excellent pace
The Bad: Execution of theme
The Basics: A surprisingly good film that is tightly written, well-executed and ultimately re-watchable, the xext time you think life stinks, watch Fight Club!


Fight Club came to me highly recommended by two people who I respect very much. I'm pleased to say they lived up to their reputations in my life with their recommendation. Unfortunately, one of the two continues to insist that Fight Club is the absolute best film of 1999, while I think American Beauty (reviewed here!) actually deserved that honor (American Beauty was one of the few films that won "Best Picture" and deserved it in recent years.).

Have you ever seen the episode of The Simpsons where Springfield has a film festival? When the critics of the films are voting for their favorite film, Jay Sheman says, "I vote for Barney Gumble's . . . film, unfortunately titled 'Puka-a-hontis.'" Well, Fight Club has the same problem, if not quite so extreme. Fight Club is a horrible title to sell this film with. Likewise, billing Brad Pitt as the star of the movie is equally problematic. We've seen a film like Fight Club before: it's called 12 Monkeys. And Brazil (reviewed here!). In fact, American Beauty, too.

Outside the problematic nature of the title and making it seem like Brad Pitt is the star, the only other two problems are Brad Pitt's acting and thematic issues. Brad Pitt gives a good performance. But it was a mistake to cast him in the role; it's too close to the magnificent performance he gave in 12 Monkeys. Throughout the film, I kept thinking Tyler Durgen was too close to Jeffery.

The real issue I had with the film was the execution of the theme. Fight Club is essentially about man's disillusionment with today's society. It's a rejection of capitalism. That's a wonderful theme. It's about emasculated men attempting to take back their lives and their place in society. Eh. The former theme is expertly dealt with in "Brazil" and the latter was more positively dealt with in American Beauty. It's an old theme. There's an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine - "Paradise" - that fumbles with both themes. "Paradise" has problems executing the theme in that everything appears too black and white. I now applaud the episode (probably one of the bottom ten episodes of the series) for at least being constructive. In "Paradise," Sisko challenges a community that rejects technology. It provides a pretty balanced argument. Fight Club is very one-sided. We, the viewers, must provide the counter-argument. And while "Paradise" has an unsatisfying ending, at least Fight Club was consistent. That is, when the themes were being dealt with, my stomach turned. My stomach remained turned through the climax.

So, what's my real beef? Fight Club rejects capitalism and attempts to re-masculate the men in it by creating clubs where men pound the piss out of each other. It's actually clever in one respect and that is it never makes explicit that the purpose of the fight club is to feel pain to realize you're still alive. That is, sometimes even feeling pain is wonderful because that lets you know you are alive. The film subtly moves from that into a cult story where Tyler Durgen is organizing an apocalypse to bring down the capitalist infrastructure of the U.S. Sigh.

The reason Fight Club works at the beginning is why it fails at the end. The Fight Club reminds its members they are alive and have something to look forward to outside their normal lives. It's quite a leap of suspension of disbelief then to think that they would all then become members of a cult (which, by the by, is not dissimilar to the Army of the 12 Monkeys . . . hmmm). That is, when we free ourselves from one set of shackles, what incentive do we have - thus aware - to shackle ourselves to another place. Perhaps that's the writer's point. Regardless, I'm left with the same problems with the themes or, more accurately, the execution of them in this film.

The final problem is that the end resolves nothing. The plot comes to a head, but the character issues still remain.

Outside that, it's a wonderful film. Usually I'd spend an equal or greater amount of time counterbalancing my argument. Basically, I'm recommending the film, yet I'm spending a good amount of space exploring my problems and issues with the movie. If I like it so much, I ought to spend a greater amount of time saying what's wonderful about it. Eh, too bad I'm not going to here. If you trust my reasons for not liking the film, trust my voice when I say the positive elements of the film outweigh my issues with it.

The truth is, everything else about the film is wonderful. And even though I have issues with the execution of the themes, given the tack they took, I think the film does it well. Edward Norton is amazing as the protagonist. He deserved top billing. The writing is tight. There's a reversal, a Kaiser Soze-type surprise that's not completely surprising (which is good because when I reached it, I said, "That makes sense" as opposed to "Oooh, I'm SO surprised!") and it comes at a good time in the film.

In all, the movie makes sense. The characters are vivid, if misguided. It's a wonderful film. Too bad about the title, though.

For other films that muse on the nature of humanity and reality, check out my reviews of:
Inception
Bicentennial Man
Sucker Punch

8.5/10

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

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |