Am I The Only One In The World Who Did Not Enjoy Anger Management?!

The Good: Moments of humor, Generally good performances
The Bad: Agonizing tone, Predictable plot, Irksome character development
The Basics: When Dave Buznik is sentenced to 20 hours of anger management therapy, he ends up getting more than he bargained for when noted author and expert Dr. Buddy Rydell antagonizes him.


There are a number of movies that came and went in their theatrical run that I had absolutely no interest in watching that I now find myself catching thanks to my wife. Pretty much any film featuring Adam Sandler falls into that category; my wife is a fan and I’m not a huge fan – though there are some that I have enjoyed. Despite the presence of Jack Nicholson in it, I never had the urge to watch the Adam Sandler film Anger Management. That avoidance ended last night when my wife and mother-in-law were in the mood to watch Anger Management and I was in the mood to hang out with them.

Hated it.

The thing is, I don’t recall what I knew about Anger Management going into it, but from the outset the movie set me off because the protagonist seemed woefully misdiagnosed with anger issues. Adam Sandler is possibly the ultimate actor for portraying seething rage beneath a good-guy persona. He did it masterfully in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), so Sandler has abilities. For sure, there are many different ways people who have anger under the surface might act, but in Anger Management, Sandler’s character of Dave Buznik exhibits no recognizable traits of someone who is truly angry and struggles to deal with that. Instead, in Anger Management, Dave is constantly provoked and he is surrounded by angry people who overact to his calm rejections of their behavior.

Dave Buznik has been dating Linda for years and he remains too timid to commit to her, despite the fact that she pals around with Andrew, an ex who shows no respect for her relationship with Dave. Dave has a great idea that his boss takes credit for. That leads to Dave traveling for his boss and on the plane, he moves seats to sit next to Dr. Buddy Rydell. In asking for headphones, Dave is forced to wait and when he gently puts his hand on the stewardess’s elbow, the plane lands and he is charged with assault. He is sentenced to twenty hours of anger management therapy . . . with Dr. Rydell.

Rydell begins almost immediately making offers to Dave and then betraying him. Dave’s sentence is expanded to forty hours and the group sessions Dave attends include the legitimately violent Chuck, a porn star couple, and a guy who is far long in Rydell’s program, Lou. Traveling together, Dave and Rydell go through a number of exercises, like Rydell having Dave pick up a woman at a bar, then telling Linda about it. Rydell has Dave confront his childhood tormenter and then starts dating Linda himself. In the process of Rydell agitating Dave, Dave comes to stand up for himself and his relationship with Linda.

Anger Management is unpleasant to watch because almost immediately, the viewer has the sense that Dave is being played. Watching a generally nice guy get railroaded by an erratic manipulator is not my idea of entertaining. As a result of the transparent way that Rydell works Dave, the “surprise” twist near the end is more obvious than audacious. Anger Management telegraphs itself and it is frustrating to watch a film where the protagonist is so far behind the curve.

That said, Anger Management has an impressive cast that is utilized remarkably well . . . outside Sandler. Sandler’s Dave is not written to be particularly angry, clever or distinct and that leaves Sandler with remarkably little to play. Anger Management does not give Adam Sandler one of his interesting or quirky characters to play and the result is that much of the movie has the viewer watching an indistinct tool.

The rest of the cast of Anger Management is impressively utilized. Jack Nicholson plays Dr. Rydell with an energetic quality that borders on the sadistic and makes the role instantly credible. Nicholson gets through the psychobabble with a brilliant straight face and when his character turns toward the charming and erratic, he lends some continuity to the performance that makes it seem like it is the same character going through everything. Nicholson has amazing facial acting and director Peter Segal captures that wonderfully. The supplemental cast of Marisa Tomei, Luiz Guzman, Kurt Fuller, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro, Heather Graham and John C. Riley flesh out the world around Dave and Rydell to keep Sandler playing off an intriguing number of other talents.

Unfortunately, the humor in Anger Management is slapstick and not at all shocking. Telegraphed well in advance, much of the film has mediocre jokes broke up by long stretches of Rydell antagonizing Dave. Anger Management is like watching torment on film and for as much as Dave is tormented, so is the viewer.

For other works with January Jones, please visit my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
Unknown
Love Actually
Bandits

4/10

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.
| | |

Two Directors Create A Series That Becomes The Best Cinematic Example Of The Law Of Diminishing Returns: The Batman Anthology

The Good: The first two films are good, Val Kilmer is decent, Great DVD/Blu-Ray bonus features!
The Bad: Joel Schumacher’s works, Repetitive plots, Series inconsistencies, Even the good films have not agd particularly well
The Basics: With no consisted story or direction, the Batman movies of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher make for an unfortunately inconsistent series that gets worse with each installment after a point.


With the recent end of the Dark Knight Trilogy (reviewed here!), the cinematic Batman franchise is once again in limbo. That is a state not entirely unfamiliar to Warner Bros., who owns the rights to the franchise and is the studio that produces all of the films based on DC Comics properties. With the abrupt end of the Batman movies of the 1990s, the franchise had to regroup and reboot. Before the powerful, thematically complex and decidedly adult The Dark Knight Trilogy, there were the Batman films of 1989 – 1997, now encapsulated in a boxed set known as Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is an incredible example of what happens when a surprise hit becomes a lucrative cash cow for a studio and that cow is milked too frequently and too hard. It is also a prime example of what happens to a franchise when the creative teams behind the camera and the talent in front of the camera are not kept consistent (in The Dark Knight Trilogy only one performer was recast!) and the vision by the later forces working on the series is clearly an attempt to capitalize on the formula as opposed to build upon the story and prior successes. The result is that Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is a film series that starts intriguing, rises well, and then steadily declines until its abrupt and painful crash.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 consists of the films:
Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
and Batman & Robin. The first two are directed by Tim Burton, the latter two by Joel Schumacher and three different actors play Bruce Wayne/Batman over the course of the four films!

In Batman, a young Bruce Wayne witnesses his father and mother being killed by a mysterious assassin. As an adult, Bruce Wayne manages the giant company left to him by his father by day and at night, he takes up armor and a cape to dispense vigilante justice on the streets of Gotham City. As the press pushes the police to admit that the Batman exists, a local gangster is smoked during a robbery of a chemical factory that goes horribly wrong. However, when Batman accidentally lets the gangster fall into a vat of chemicals, the man is not killed, but rather transformed into a psychopathic killer. Waging a battle with chemical weapons, the Joker menaces Gotham City and threatens to undo all the good Batman is working for.

Batman Returns happens around Christmastime a short time later. Gotham City is hit with a crime wave from a gang of thugs who use old circus equipment. While Batman keeps them in check, he is not prepared for the city to have to deal with more threats. Those threats come in the form of a mysterious man, Oswald Cobblepot, who literally rises out of the sewers to save an abducted baby and a catburgler who seems bent on wreaking vengeance at night to make up for her unsatisfying daytime life (and the fact that her boss tried to kill her). While Bruce Wayne fends off a corporate attack from his rival, Max Shreck, he finds romance with Selena Kyle and it slowly begins to dawn on him that she is the same person as the mysterious Catwoman he fights at night. When Shreck uses Cobblepot as a pawn to take the mayor’s office, the fallout creates a villain who wants to kill all the firstborn of Gotham City.

Joel Schumacher took over behind the camera and Val Kilmer took on the role of Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. In that, a demented former-District Attorney, Harvey Dent, begins a reign of terror and violence (focused on bank robberies) as the villainous Two-Face. Bruce Wayne’s problems are multiplied, though, when one of his employees creates a device that can drain the brains of the citizens of Gotham City and unlock all the secrets the people there have. As Batman squares off against Two-Face and the Riddler, he is aided by a forensic psychologist and a young acrobat who lost his parents and wants to fight crime as well . . . Robin.

George Clooney’s only outing in the cape and cowl comes in Batman & Robin where Batman and Robin are assisted by Alfred’s neice, who takes up the alter ego of Batgirl. The pair could use her help as they are bickering over how to take down the formidable Mr. Freeze and they fall under the love spell-style charms of Poison Ivy and her thug, Bane.

To his credit, Tim Burton’s two outings – in addition to being appropriately weird (as one expects from Tim Burton’s works) – have larger themes. Batman explores crime and the nature of justice vs. the pitfalls of revenge and Batman Returns has a great deal about empowering women and the snares of political corruption. Unfortunately, by the time Batman Forever comes up, the writers and director are working for big action, flamboyant villains, and star power, as opposed to trying to create films of substance. This is not to say that Tim Burton got everything right in his two films. While the miniatures look great, even by today’s standards, Batman is surprisingly slow and the focus on the Joker is far less compelling in-context of Batman’s story than it is as a stand-alone film.

That said, it is almost inarguable that Tim Burton helped effectively usher in the youth culture mindset of the 1990s with Batman and then the even more violent Batman Returns. The two films created a nihilistic sense of the world; crime ran rampant and the victories were more ambiguous than celebratory and the hero uses many of the same methods as the villains, just with nobler purpose.

Val Kilmer was not a bad choice to replace Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne and Batman and he had the physical presence to pull off the dual roles more plausibly than Keaton, who played the part of Bruce Wayne as more goofy than gallant. Kilmer, however, was saddled with a particularly weak script with Batman Forever and a film that was intended to be a Jim Carrey vehicle and ended up disappointing on so many fronts. Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever also prioritized casting (the entire series has pretty impressive guest cast members from the major – Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger – to the supporting players who flesh out surprisingly minor roles – Kim Bassinger, Robert Wuhl, Christopher Walken, Drew Barrymore, John Glover, Vivica A. Fox) over fidelity to the series thus far. To wit, in Batman, Harvey Dent was played by Billy Dee Williams and in Batman Forever he is recast with Tommy Lee Jones. It takes a lot more than an acid bath from a mobster to make Billy Dee Williams into Tommy Lee Jones!

The epitome of Schumacher’s obsession with star power and spectacle over substance is in Batman & Robin. There, Arnold Schwarzenegger appears as Mr. Freeze, a character written with a thin backstory surrounding his attempts to cure his wife (who is in suspended animation), but is executed as a character constructed almost entirely of catchphrases. To wit, his big monologue from the film’s trailer, where he introduces himself as a threat to Gotham City appears in the film’s middle, after he is incarcerated, when he introduces himself to two people (his jailers) who know exactly who he is! It is this type of stupidity that shook the series and almost gutted this franchise.

Performances in the Batman movies in this set are generally good. Michael Keaton is an intriguing Bruce Wayne and he pulled off the action sequences for Batman better than most might have suspected. Jack Nicholson performed opposite him in Batman with a flamboyancy and menace that worked beautifully to define the character of the Joker. Danny DeVito gives one of his most underrated performances as Oswald Cobblepot (the Penguin) and Michelle Pfeiffer and Keaton had great on-screen chemistry in Batman Returns. While Val Kilmer and Chris O’Donnell did fine as Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson, George Clooney seemed unusually stiff when he took up the mantle in Batman & Robbin. The less said about Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the better.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Batman Anthology is chock full of goodies. There are extensive featurettes on the production of the films, from concept designs through casting and the bonus features provide a wealth of insight into how moviemaking was done, especially at the birth of CG effects. Fans of Batman may want to champion the whole series, but given how most people will only watch bonus featurettes once, the full Batman Anthology is hardly worth investing in. Tim Burton’s works might be worth picking up, but Joel Schumacher’s outings oscillate between the disappointing and the outright insulting.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman & Robin
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

3.5/10

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

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

Giving Just Enough: Something’s Gotta Give Is Not Bad.

The Good: Good acting, Interesting characters, Initially interesting plot
The Bad: Film mortgages characters for safe plot resolution
The Basics: When the playboy Harry Sanborn meets the cultured playwright Erica Barry, an unpredictable friendship is formed that is generally satisfying.


The problem with writing a review for Something’s Gotta Give is that all of the serious detractions to the movie come in the resolution of the film. I'm not one to spoil a movie where it is probable that one does not know where it is going, so my review (and average rating of the movie) will be somewhat less developed than it could be.

While famous bachelor Harry Sanborn is dating his latest young, uncomplicated conquest, he finds himself in the presence of noted playwright Erica Barry. Barry is repulsed by Harry's immediate air of implied chauvinism and prejudiced against his business (despite being an older white guy, Harry owns a hip-hop label). When Harry has a heart attack, he is forced to stay in Erica's house, where he begins to develop a relationship with her, as opposed to her daughter Marin.

As Erica and Harry get to know one another, Erica finds herself charmed. Their friendship opens her up to a relationship with Harry's young doctor, Julian. Julian is a big fan of Erica's plays and he makes it clear from their first meeting that he would love to get to know her. So, Erica's personal and professional lives become complicated by relationships.

And the two real problems with Something’s Gotta Give (outside the ridiculously inappropriate title) are how the plots are resolved and Keanu Reeves. The movie establishes a premise that challenges the conventions of relationships that people in the United States are accustomed to. I like that. While Erica is exploring her options with Julian, the movie is intriguing. When Harry is spending time with Erica relating why he enjoys dating women in their late twenties, he reveals levels of relationship complexity (or lack of complexity) that defy the expectations we have of a man who does not date within his age group.

So, Something’s Gotta Give sets the viewer up for an experience that will challenge our conventions, possibly make us think and otherwise be something different. I like different, especially when it works. And for a time, this movie works. But then . . .

The other problem I have is with Keanu Reeves. Reeves is not a great actor and in this movie he's required to show interest in Diane Keaton's character. We never feel a real spark here. Reeves does not emote in a way that makes the viewer believe he is truly into Erica. As a result, the plot problems in some ways become evident. This, I'm sure, was not intended. That is, the only reason the ends come as no real surprise is because Reeves does not play his part with any on-screen chemistry.

Outside that, the movie works. It's funny, it's heartwarming, it is heartwrenching all in turn. The plot is fairly well put together and the characters are interesting. The acting, outside Reeves, is great. Frances McDormand enters the movie at the outset and leaves far too early. Amanda Peet gives a vivid performance as Marin and from her opening scenes, we believe that she could be with Jack Nicholson's Harry.

Nicholson, for his part, gives a performance on par with his appearance in As Good As It Gets (reviewed here!). He is more articulate as Harry Sanborn than in any role in recent memory of his. His portrayal in Something’s Gotta Give almost redeems his unbearable About Schmidt (reviewed here!). When appropriate, he is articulate, then funny, then genuinely emotional. Seeing him work through his issues is impressive as a character study and Nicholson makes the character work.

The movie turns on Diane Keaton's performance as Erica Barry. First off, it's always a pleasure to see women past what Hollywood considers their prime taking supposed risks like nude scenes and Keaton pulls hers off with panache. Keaton is given the toughest role in the middle of the movie of expressing loss and sorrow while attempting to be productive through it. During that wrenching sequence, which might last a whisper too long, Keaton is utterly convincing. Her performance is powerful and it is impossible not to feel empathy for her character. That empathy is not guaranteed by the audience, Keaton earns it. And that's pretty cool.

Who will enjoy Something's Gotta Give? Anyone who would like a decent romantic comedy. This is fairly archetypal but it opens well and sucks the viewer in quite effectively. It's worth a viewing, even if it's a tough sell for one's permanent collection.

For other works with Diane Keaton, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Morning Glory
The Family Stone
Annie Hall
The Godfather, Part II
The Godfather

5.5/10

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

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

Sigh, Eh . . . About Schmidt

The Good: Not much, moments of acting
The Bad: Utterly unlikable characters, Boring - if not, absent - plot, Obvious epiphanies
The Basics: When Harold Schmidt loses his wife, he latches onto his daughter in a boring cross-country odyssey to get to her boring wedding. Man, this film drags!


It's hard to muster a lot of enthusiasm for About Schmidt; and I am someone who enjoys a good depressing movie (Brazil) or a mid-life crisis movie (American Beauty). The overriding problem is that the movie is about dull people, doing dull things, while looking, feeling and acting utterly dull. I'm surprised I could muster up a sigh even after watching this.

Harold Schmidt has been forced into retirement and shortly thereafter, his wife dies leaving him very much alone. He adopts a foster child (like you see on the commercials for Christian Charities abroad) and sends the youth letters about what is going on in his life. The letters become his opportunity to vent and he describes meeting his daughter's fiance and going to her wedding cross country in his Winnebago.

The problem with About Schmidt is that it spends a great deal of time with Harold complaining, but he never has anything beyond that. That is to say that he complains because he doesn't like things, but he never offers any sort of ambition or idea about how things could be better. So, the film ends up being 125 long minutes of Harold Schmidt quietly whining about everything without ever progressing beyond that.

The unrelenting complaining, dejected staring and lack of wit to Schmidt makes Harold one of the lousiest protagonists in recent memory. The pedophile from Boogie Nights had more charisma than Schmidt and he was just plain wrong! Schmidt is like a one-man geriatric Waiting for Godot.

A big part of the problem is in the acting. Jack Nicholson has become typecast as a curmudgeon and in About Schmidt he plays the same role he has played, but without any of the flair he had in other roles. Nicholson plays Schmidt like his character in As Good As It Gets (reviewed here!), but without the anger. What do you have of that character without the anger? Just a boring old guy complaining. Or, like I said, Schmidt. The role adds nothing even remotely impressive to the repertoire; in fact, it detracts from it, given how disappointing the performance is.

Likewise, Kathy Bates is playing a loud, excitable, somewhat flamboyant woman. We've seen that before from her in Titanic (did I just admit to seeing that movie?!). Here she does it with a little more hickdom to it, but it wears thin long before her nude scene. In fact, quite possibly the only redeeming thing about About Schmidt is Kathy Bates' nude scene. Why? She looks like a real person. It's refreshing to see people other than the Hollywood ideal on our screens and Kathy Bates is a nice distance away from that standard.

Still, it's nowhere near enough to save this movie. It's long, pointless and the morals of it (live each day to its fullest, especially while you're young) have been done elsewhere with much better results. Even a Nicholson fan will have difficulty swallowing this one.

For other works with Kathy Bates, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Valentine’s Day
The Blind Side
Six Feet Under
Primary Colors

2.5/10

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

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

| | |

Starting The Modern Batman Cinematic Saga Off Well, Batman Still Ages Poorly.

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of action, Moments of performance, General character elements
The Bad: Not as intense as it ought to be for the character.
The Basics: While ambitious, fun and good, Batman did not age nearly as well as some of the other cinematic superhero films.


Last night, as part of our pre-Oscars celebration, my wife and I decided to order a pizza. Unwilling to break our diet for a random pizza and snacks, but unwilling to wait for the actual Oscars to begin, we decided to watch a movie neither of us had seen in years: Batman. I recall seeing Batman theatrically, but I remember having much more personal and enjoyable memories of seeing Batman Returns (reviewed here!). My wife and I have become so used to watching Heath Ledger’s performance of the Joker in The Dark Knight (reviewed here!), that we thought it would be enjoyable to watch Batman together and make an event out of watching the supposedly-great film right before watching the 84th Annual Academy Awards. Ultimately, we were glad we did; both of us were disappointed when The Artist won Best Picture.

But we were also not as taken with Batman as we expected to be. For sure, it is a cool, fun, all-around decent movie. But Batman is hardly flawless and there are some real detractions to the movie that once dazzled us. My wife, for example, found herself laughing at how cheesy many of the miniature shots and special effects were (though she still jumped when Vicki Vale opened the Joker’s gift box! She was preoccupied with the ridiculous sense of style, which it was hard to blame her about; the 1980s were not the most impressive from a fashion sense. But what I found interesting about watching Batman now was how it lacked a certain intensity that I have come to expect from both the film-franchise and the result of reading many graphic novels in which Bruce Wayne’s Batman is an integral character.

Gotham City is dark and plagued by crime, but the criminals in the city are running scared. Their fear and caution comes from the rumors that criminals are being stalked at night by a giant creature who may be a large bat creature. While they attribute supernatural qualities to him, he is a man with advanced technology – like body armor and grappling guns – who has the will to fight evildoers and an understanding of psychology to keep some on the streets to spread fear. The Gotham City police force and newly-elected District Attorney Harvey Dent officially deny the existence of Batman, though the police force is corrupted by officers on the mob’s payroll. One mobster, Jack Napier, is sleeping with the wife of the lead mobster and Grissom decides to have Jack snuffed out.

While hosting a charity event to raise money for Gotham City’s bicentennial celebration festival, billionaire Bruce Wayne, who is hounded by reporter Alexander Knox and photographer Vicki Vale, is alerted that the police commissioner has been called away. Converging at Axis Chemicals, the police corner Napier’s squad and in a desperate battle, Batman drops Napier into a vat of chemicals. The Joker is thus born. Sewn back together, his face twisted into a constant smile, Napier as the Joker begins cleaning up loose ends from his prior life, essentially taking control of the mob. As Bruce Wayne falls in love with Vicki Vale, the Joker begins a killing spree involving chemical tampering of health and beauty products. When the Joker discovers (and covets) Vicki Vale, Batman must stop the villain once and for all!

Batman is fun, there is no denying that. But Batman is also a lot more cluttered than I recall it being and by that I mean there are a lot of unnecessary elements in Batman that fill the movie up without adding anything truly significant. Perhaps I am just jaded; Gotham City is dirty, on the verge of bankrupt and under the fist of local mobs. But it has a vigilante, who is not excessively cruel and an engaged media and political machine that seems ot be making an effort. The whole festival plot seems thrown in as a plot point, as opposed to an actual organic event. Of course, it becomes the backdrop for the film’s climax, but it seems somehow more contrived than I remember it being as a kid.

What really stuck out for me about Batman, though, was how Bruce Wayne had a strange lack of intensity. I like Michael Keaton. I like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman - Batman Returns is in my permanent collection and remains my favorite Christmas movie of all time (seriously!). But in Batman, he does not seem all that intense. Instead, Bruce Wayne is characterized as an absent-minded billionaire who is motivated by a strong sense of loss. In Batman, Michael Keaton captures the loss well when Bruce Wayne is shown mourning the anniversary of his parents’ murder. But there is a strange disconnect then with his ruthless efficiency in trying to clean up Gotham City’s streets. Perhaps that is part of the problem; while Batman is characterized as a vigilante, he does not seem ruthless. At several opportunities, Batman flees to keep his identity safe as opposed to actually stopping criminals. In other words, I think of Batman as something of an absolutist, almost like Rorschach from Watchmen (reviewed here!). This incarnation of Batman lacks the full intensity of the character. He is flighty as opposed to determined, cautious as opposed to confident and expresses loss and hurt more than Bruce Wayne ever seems to in the comic books. While that might make him a more human character, which I like in my movies, it makes his place as Batman a little more uncertain. In other words, this version of Bruce Wayne seems less like he would actually dress up and go out as a vigilante than the Christian Bale or Val Kilmer versions of Batman.

So, Batman ends up being a much more compelling story about the Joker. Jack Napier is smart, which works out nicely because it explains how – even in his demented Joker state – he could create the complicated killing mechanism that he does. He is played with great intensity by Jack Nicholson, who proves to be far more than thhe sum of the catch-phrase lines and make-up. In fact, the only problem with Nicholson’s execution of the Joker comes when he is playing Jack Napier. As Napier, Nicholson has the chance to show the character before the accident, before he was turned into anything inhuman. Unfortunately, Nicholson misses the opportunity. In scenes where Jack Napier and his mistress, Grissom’s wife (or girlfriend) Alicia, interact before the accident, Nicholson never seems passionate or happy. The viewer is compelled to believe that Napier will risk everything for one woman, but he never seems all that into her.

Outside that, Nicholson’s performance, like that of Michael Keaton, Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Knox), Michael Gough (Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler) and Billy Dee Williams, who plays Harvey Dent with enough presence to figure that he was trying to set up the role for one of the sequels where he could play Dent as Two-Face. Obviously, that never materialized, but Williams has a memorable outing at Harvey Dent. The extras in Batman, though, do rob the film of any real consideration that Batman possesses perfect acting. There are unfortunate bit roles where the lesser-known actors seem especially lifeless or problematically unreal. Tracey Walter, who plays Bob the goon (there was even an action figure made of the character!), stood out for me as a guy who never seemed to be truly comfortable on camera in the movie.

On DVD, Batman comes in a two-disc edition with enough bonus features to thrill fans (and even address some of my issues with the movie!). While I kept considering Batman about a 7/10, the deluxe edition DVD set truly does give viewers enough to really fall in love with the experience of making the movie. With detailed looks at the minitatures and props, the DVD and Blu-Ray version of Batman is well worth watching, if not adding to one’s permanent collection.

For other live-action DC superhero films, please check out my reviews of:
Superman Returns
Batman Begins
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Catwoman

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete list of films I have reviewed!

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

Almost As Good As A Film Could Be: As Good As It Gets!

The Good: Amusing, Good acting, Interesting characters, Less than predictable plot
The Bad: Nothing major, Elements of predictability
The Basics: Entertaining, emotional and witty, As Good As It Gets comes close to a perfect comedy by not trying to be unnecessarily funny.


As Good As It Gets is an attempt to make a romantic comedy into something more and something different. It succeeds at the former and almost makes it as the latter. Were it not for the very end of the film and minutiae throughout, As Good As It Gets could live up to its title.

Melvin Udall is a novelist of apparently some success and import. He's obsessive compulsive and probably a hypochondriac. He is determined not to step on cracks in the sidewalk or any surface he walks on, creates an orderly environment where he writes his works and the hypochondria is evident in his obsession with germs and his bringing his own plasticware to the restaurant he habitually dines in.

Being such a pain, only one person in the restaurant who can stand - or handle - Melvin is Carol. Carol puts up with Melvin and they get on despite Melvin's crass remarks. Melvin also offends his neighbor Simon with his open homophobia and ethnic prejudice. The film's action is simple: Melvin offends Carol with a comment about her ailing son and Simon gets mugged. He gets beat up seriously. Melvin is compelled to take care of Simon's dog and in the process, Melvin extends kindness to Carol by getting health care for her ailing son.

The film hinges on the use of the characters around the protagonist. Melvin is an unlikable protagonist and he is surrounded by good and vibrant people. Carol is a wonderful character, Simon is well defined and interesting. He is crushed physically and emotionally throughout the film and it is through Simon that the film becomes something more than a romantic comedy. He's not funny, he's real and that in itself is wonderful.

The minutiae that keep the film from perfection are in Melvin. So much of the film is gotten right with him: he's a germophobe and has a stainless steel refrigerator, he leaves a restaurant with a dress code rather than wear the provided common outfit. And yet, his transformation does not read right in the time frame. While I believe the power of unconditional love is great, but it does not undo at least forty years of prejudice and inconsiderate behavior. And while the argument may be made that Melvin's kindness to Carol and her son is self-serving, it's a weak argument.

The flaw with the end is that, after all the ways the remainder of the film defies the expectation of a romantic comedy, it does not live up to our expectations that the film will continue to challenge us in its resolution.

What works is that - even with the character flaws in the arc of Melvin - the acting is consistently great. Jack Nicholson is wonderful and sardonic as Melvin. Helen Hunt - between this and Pay It Forward (reviewed here!) - proves she can play well a character quite different from herself. Wonderful! Greg Kinnear plays Simon wonderfully with depth that is lacking from so many characters in today's works. Cuba Gooding Jr. performs well as Simon's partner.

When As Good As It Gets attempts humor, it succeeds, when it tries serious and deep, it excels. This film is perfect for those who enjoyed the short-lived series Sports Night (reviewed here!) and is a fine choice for anyone who wants more of their comedies than funny and predictable.

For other works with Jack Nicholson, please visit my reviews of:
The Departed
Terms Of Endearment
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

9/10

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

© 2011, 2007, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Appropriately Perfect, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Makes For A Substantial DVD Release!

The Good: Amazing acting, Engaging story, Wonderful DVD bonus features, Memorable characters.
The Bad: A weird obsession with zooming early in the film.
The Basics: Funny, emotionally-resonant and filled with amazing performances, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a true classic of American cinema.


When the worst one can say about a movie is that it is annoying early in the film how the director avoids static shots by doing simple, slow pans in on the faces of characters, the film has to be pretty amazing. For me, it says something when a classic movie endures even when viewed now, but One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a good model for perfection in that it remains as relevant, funny and engaging now as when it was released, almost thirty-five years ago. In fact, as my partner and I watched the film last night, after about twenty minutes, she frowned, sat up in bed and began watching the movie in earnest after noting, "This is MUCH better than I remember it being." I was surprised because for all of my love of American cinema, I'd only seen the last ten minutes of the film before last night.

Part of the reason this is such a surprise to me is that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest boasts one of the most impressive casts of all time. Led by Academy Award winners Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher, this was an impressive cinematic outing that also included a young Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito! As well, character actors Vincent Schiavelli and Michael Berryman are recognizably present. As always in such cases, this is a review of the film One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book many years ago and this is not it. The only difference I'll even bother mentioning (because the two are entirely different works of art and because it is the only one I remember) is that Nurse Ratched was characterized as having much more prominent breasts in the book.

Dr. Spivey, chief administrator of a in-patient mental institution, takes in R.P. McMurphy from a prison work farm. Initially charged with statutory rape, McMurphy arrives as a troublemaker and despite his initial characterization, he sits quietly at the morning meeting on the ward. While more vocal inmates, like Taber, rail against some of the failings of other inmates, McMurphy watches and seems content to lay low for a while among "the crazies." Soon, he is befriending and swindling the inmates and using a giant Native American Indian (rumored to be deaf and mute) to prepare to go over the gate. When the World Series comes around, McMurphy tries to challenge Nurse Ratched's routines so the men can watch the game.

In danger of being sent back to the penitentiary for not being crazy enough, McMurphy leaps the fence and takes the men of the ward on a fishing trip. This leads Ratched to redouble her efforts to maintain control on the floor of the ward and McMurphy to more openly rebel against her.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a funny, character-driven film where the characters are all amazingly portrayed. However, the impression of some of the characters is very much based on hype or interpretation as opposed to an objective view of the source material. For example, the DVD case declares that Nurse Ratched is one of the greatest villains in cinematic history, but Ratched is coolly efficient and actually is motivated by a strong desire to do good. She keeps order on the ward and she does so without any overt cruelty until the penultimate scene of the movie when she confronts the young Billy about his actions. Until then, she is reserved, but generally reasonable. In fact, it is only when McMurphy directly challenges her authority about the change in schedule that she becomes picayune and punitive. Outside that, she is very much an archetype of a mental health professional working to better the lives of her charges.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is not a film where a lot happens; most of it is set within the walls of the mental ward and the trip on the boat is a notable departure in the latter half of the film. Far more what the movie is about is a man in a jam trying to organize his escape and infuse chaos into an ordered, but arguably inefficient, system. McMurphy arrives on the ward and begins carefully noting the way things are done as well as testing the holes in the security. He makes several valid points, most notably about the obsessive use of medication without real evaluation within the facility, but much of the rebellion is self-serving. McMurphy wants to watch the World Series, so he organizes the vote to change responsibilities. McMurphy wants to get laid, so he abducts his fellow wardmates and takes them to the open sea. If Ratched is supposed to be a villain, McMurphy cannot be considered a hero because his sense of purpose is so self-involved.

In many ways, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a film where a classic Freudian interpretation works wonderfully. McMurphy is an Id, Ratched is a superego and arguments can be made about who represents the ego and what the health of that is. Largely, though, the film isn't even about a conflict between McMurphy and Ratched as it is about McMurphy challenging his fellow wardmates to not surrender to the idea that they are mentally ill in a way that needs to be fixed by institutionalization. He finds an almost immediate ally in Cheswick and soon after in the arguably-psychotic Taber. But when the film turns into a real rebellion led by McMurphy, the film turns quickly and the eruption that results leads to one of the quickest and most powerful cinematic resolutions of all time.

The acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is homogeneously excellent, with Will Sampson and Sydney Lassick holding their own with the much more famous cast members. Christopher Lloyd has an auspicious outing as Taber where he carries quick reversals with a simple bugging out of his eyes or the turn of his smile. Similarly, DeVito is distinctly different than his more famous roles as Louie DePalma and he plays the quieter, more shy role of Martini with a wonderfully reserved body language.

Appropriately the winner of the Best Actress Oscar and Golden Globe, Louise Fletcher is amazing as Nurse Ratched. Having seen her for years as a political/religious villain on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine her ability to play cold and efficient is no surprise. What is surprising is how she carries herself as so humane in scenes with Dr. Spivey and how she makes her character's statement of desire to help reform McMurphy seem real and true. Fletcher is an amazing actress and as she holds her nurse's cap at the end of the film, it is hard not to feel something for her character.

And Jack Nicholson deserves the accolades he receives as McMurphy. Seldom mentioned, Nicholson (and several other actors) are required to yell throughout the movie and Nicholson throws himself into the crazed scenes with a gusto that is entirely convincing. As well, in the scenes where he plays quietly indignant or hurt, it becomes very easy to empathize with his character.

On the two-disc DVD set, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest arrives with the options of widescreen or standard viewing. As well, there is a list of all of the awards the film won and the original trailers for the film. There is a new commentary which is informative and entertaining. The second disc features a documentary that is even more extensive and includes some great outtakes from the filming of the movie. Anyone who loves to study classic films will enjoy seeing all of the featurettes on the new edition of the film.

But for those who just like to watch films, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is an amazing film which lives up to its hype for greatness, even if some of the characters are not as monolithic as the packaging would like viewers to believe!

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, online here! Please check it out!]

For other works featuring Christopher Lloyd, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Piranha 3D
The West Wing - Season 6
The Back To The Future Trilogy
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

10/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my index page by clicking here!

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


| | |

A Romance With A Bit Of Comedy, Terms Of Endearment Is Good, But Not Great.

The Good: Funny, Good character development, Decent acting
The Bad: Time leaps are problematic, Characters do unlikable things, Light on DVD bonus features, Soundtrack.
The Basics: Funny until it takes a turn to the depressing, Terms Of Endearment is a remarkably safe tear-jerker.

As my wife and I finish watching Frasier (reviewed here!), I've been trying to find things by people involved in that to keep exposing her to. My wife has grown to love Frasier and trying to find things with the same actors or by those who were involved in the production of it has kept us both entertained. I mention this at the outset of my review of Terms Of Endearment because my wife was excited about watching it with me because I told her that the writer/director of the film, James L. Brooks, was one of the co-creators of her now-beloved Frasier. As it turns out, Brooks is the creator of The Critic, which my wife loves, not Frasier. But this digression is not as pointless as it might seem; there are a lot of parallels between Terms Of Endearment and Frasier.

Like Frasier, Terms Of Endearment is character-driven story with both romantic and dramatic elements to it. Both are written with higher levels of diction and span many years in terms of storytelling. But, truth be told, Terms Of Endearment is no Frasier and while it had its moments, I found myself more neutral to the film than truly impressed by it. Terms Of Endearment is based upon a novel by Larry McMurtry, but this review is solely of the cinematic rendering of the story. Any of the problems or aspects of the book not included in the film remain unknown to me.

Growing up with her ultra-controlling mother, Emma looks forward to fleeing the nest. As a result, at the earliest possible time, she marries her high school fling, Flap. Despite her mother, Aurora's, insistence and protests that Flap is entirely wrong for her, Emma marries Flap and together they run off to Des Moines because of his teaching job. As Emma and Flap have children and struggle to maintain their marriage, Aurora overcomes feeling old about her age by starting to see the promiscuous former-astronaut who lives next door. While Aurora slowly overcomes her timidity and begins to fall in love with Garret, Emma deals with her family's poverty and the growing distance between her and Flap.

Not wanting his lifestyle to change, Garret eventually freaks out on Aurora and Emma and Flap grow even more distant as Emma suspects the young professor is cheating on her. Even as Emma has an affair of her own with a local banker, Flap is offered an opportunity in Nebraska. With the demands of raising their children and a health problem overwhelming her, Emma begins to turn to her mother in a way she never expected herself to.

Terms Of Endearment is an interesting character study that is laugh-out-loud funny in points and actually heartwrenching at others, but how it won the top Oscar prize remains a mystery to me. Perhaps this was another year when there were no truly great choices. Or perhaps it is because after not moving for an hour and a half, Terms Of Endearment becomes a surprisingly powerful drama. What Terms Of Endearment does very well is capture the randomness of life and the way that one’s fortunes are never truly anticipated. The early antagonist in the film, Aurora, has a decent arc whereby she slowly begins to loosen up and enjoy life, which is a far cry from the character who timidly enters her daughter's room convinced the baby is dead (preferring the screaming child to the sound asleep girl).

But what it failed to do for me was create empathetic characters. Terms Of Endearment is largely considered a classic tear-jerker because of the health issue with Emma in the last portion of the film, but before that, her character does a lot of things that make it hard to actually be on her side. The film never definitively establishes if Flap is actually cheating on her or if it is her being overly suspicious . . . until long after she is engaged in an extramarital affair herself. So, while by and large fans want to root for her, she does some things which are low and obvious that we do not see Flap engage in. In fact, his only confirmed affairs come after Emma is already cheating on him and the first time we see her “evidence,” he is trying to talk an amorous student off him.

In some ways, Terms Of Endearment is unfair to the female characters; Aurora is neurotic and Emma is rebellious, suspicious and ultimately a cheating wife, so there is a lot of moral ambiguity to the characters. In fact, Sam, the man Emma has the affair with, is almost characterized as noble for sticking with his crippled wife while he has an affair, whereas one interpretation of Terms Of Endearment would be that Emma’s illness is Fate biting her in the butt for her own infidelity.

That said, what makes Terms Of Endearment fun and worthwhile – not the obvious, overbearing annoying ?’s soundtrack through all the most poignant moments! – is the acting. Jack Nicholson appears as Garrett and this comedic turn actually prepares viewers for later roles like the one he had in As Good As It Gets. Clearly different from his McMurphy character, Garrett is a womanizer who actually seems to enjoy life and have some moments of depth to him. Nicholson plays the role with a wonderful sense of physical comedy as well as line deliveries that make the verbal humor work.

Similarly, Jeff Daniels, Danny DeVito (whose role is little more than a cameo) and John Lithgow all have decent supporting roles which allow them to do the best they can with the roles they are given. The one who shines, though, is Shirley MacLaine as Aurora. She is energetic as the character develops, but solemn through most of the film. MacLaine makes it easy for viewers to not like Aurora, but she plays the role of the protective mother without any of the shrill quality she possessed for Postcards From The Edge.

Unfortunately, the nature of the story rides Debra Winger a bit hard. Debra Winger looks young as Emma, disturbingly so in the movie’s earliest scenes. But the film jumps awkwardly into the future at intervals that take a moment or two for the viewer to catch up with. The problem is Winger does not age as the movie goes on a sufficient amount. Emma’s children grow up, Winger looks essentially as she did the day the first one was born. Her performance does not develop the character with any additional sense of maturity either. This becomes a problem the longer the film goes on, especially when Emma gets ill.

That said, Terms Of Endearment is a worthwhile film and it is a family drama the whole family may enjoy. Moreover, unlike some films that come later, the struggles in this movie are a bit simpler and more realistic, making it much more accessible. On DVD, Terms Of Endearment comes with a commentary track and the theatrical trailers for the film. It is more than enough for this drama, as the commentary track is remarkably thorough with the behind-the-scenes information on the movie.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project here! Please check it out!]

For other works with Danny DeVito, please check out my reviews of:
It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Season 3
It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Seasons 1 & 2
Big Fish
The Rainmaker
L.A. Confidential
Batman Returns

6/10

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

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


| | |

Another Year The Best Picture Probably Wasn't: The Departed.

The Good: Decent acting, Moments where characters are interesting, DVD extras
The Bad: Pacing, Plot becomes tired, Does not seem all that fresh
The Basics: The Departed, another weak Best Picture win, is filled with gore, generic archetypal characters and performances that simply use the innate talent of the performers.


For years now, I've been taking cracks at the Emmy's, Oscars and Golden Globes for their obsessive need to present their awards annually. Indeed, my best argument comes in the form of the Best Picture awards given out by those shows that deal with films. The luck some films have is in being nominated in a year of mediocre films. The result is a collection of remarkably mixed "Best Picture" wins. Sure, The Departed might be the best film to hit theaters in 2006, but it's not a particularly great film, not one likely to endure as a true American classic. Yes, I'm arguing that the Academy ought to have held off a year until there was a Best Picture that was also a Great Picture, because for as good as The Departed is, it's no Casablanca.

Opening with lines that are intended to shock the viewer - Jack Nicholson's character opens the film with a voice over that includes racist epitaphs - The Departed relies more on setting than actual character to establish the world it embodies and while it is entertaining, it's not the masterpiece of all films that several people seem to want it to be.

Frank Costello is an Irish gangster in Boston who has the good fortune of having a long view and has never been effectively caught by the corrupt police in Massachusetts. The State and the Feds have a long view as well and they have worked hard to train an officer, Billy Costigan, to infiltrate the mob. He had pretty sterling connections considering his father was corrupt, so he is compelled by two chief detectives to take on additional training (like jail time) to establish an image that will effectively allow him to infiltrate Frank's gang to get the evidence needed to put Costello away for good.

The problem the Feds and the Massachusetts State troopers have is that Costello had essentially the same plan, raising Colin Sullivan to be a brilliant cop who is assigned to Costello's case. It does not take long before Costigan realizes there is a mole within the agency and Sullivan is forced to work extra hard to cover his tracks. In the process, Costigan and Sullivan share the same woman, Costello becomes sloppy and a killing spree breaks out that puts a real timetable on every person's agenda.

The Departed is a police drama that is deeply involved with undercover characters and the only character aspect that is genuinely interesting from the beginning to the end of the film is the identity-in-trust of Costigan. In order to have Costigan become an effective mole of Costello's organization, his identity must be erased and completely restructured. Costigan, Captain Queenan and undercover Sergeant Dignam are the only three people who know the truth or have access to it. So on a character level, the viewer knows that Costigan is safe and can get out once his assignment is over, so long as either Queenan or Dignam is alive and in a position to help him.

Thus, The Departed only becomes truly interesting when those three characters are placed in real jeopardy. Fortunately, the script is just smart enough to recall this and keep Sullivan smart enough to rearrange the proverbial pieces on the board to keep those three essential characters off balance with is machinations. When Queenan, for example, is menaced, the viewer cares because we understand the real threat is to the strung-out Costigan.

That said, most of the characters are either unlikable (like Costello) or more archetypes than actualized characters. The female characters - notably police psychologist Madolyn Madden - are generally flat and serve to advance the fairly male-dominated plot line. Madden is as corrupt and easy to manipulate as all of the men and the suggestion in her character that because she is open to lying to her boyfriend (Sullivan) that she wants to be lied to is particularly disturbing. Indeed, the problem with the Sullivan/Madden relationship is that it is built on lies that come far too easily for both characters and leave the viewer wondering what truly motivates the pair to be together other than simple physical lust. At the end of the day, though, the role is inconsequential; Madden is mostly used as a tool to expose more plot points and continue to paint Sullivan and Costigan. In other words, she never pops as a character who is distinct in her own right and does not seem to have a life or identity outside serving the basic plot of the main story.

And for as edgy as the film is supposed to be, so much of it feels like it has been done before. The Departed hinges on a series of twists and turns and by the time the viewer gets to a certain point in the film, the twists become predictable and we accept that the good guys might not win the day. The bloodbath that ensues over the turf war between the law and the mob becomes an almost predictable series of strikes and counterstrikes. There comes a point in the film that the bodies start piling up and I began to call just who would be killed off next. I got them all right. It's pretty sad when a supposed thriller is not quite engaging enough to keep us within the film long enough to finish its story. But I found myself bored with the chase and the sequence of reversals which allowed me to start commenting on the work as I watched it. That's never a good thing.

And perhaps the most shocking element of characterization - the use of racist terms and the boatload of swearing - has been done before. The Departed thinks it's new to characterize bad people by illustrating their unacceptable social behavior with their language. Well, Costello is pretty bad from the outset without throwing around "nigger" and every other word in the book. And by the end of the film, who is good and who is less than based on the number of shots fired is pretty clear.

The Departed is also fairly graphic with the violence and gore. Those who complain about such things as the alien blowing out the head of a convict with its inner jaw in Alien 3 will be hard pressed to say that the gore in this film is not more significant. After all, here we see multiple people shot - including right in the face with big gory splatters behind them -, thrown off buildings, and dying in other painful ways. And we see it happen on screen through the magic of special effects and make-up and the difference between it being done by alien life forms and humans should be more horrific in this context. Yet, most of the reviewers praised The Departed and found the gore in films like Alien 3 to be over-the-top. I suppose times change. Or Martin Scorsese gets a freebie for being Martin Scorsese. I'm becoming convinced that certain directors are able to get away with more based on the virtue of being famous and well-respected. In The Departed, Scorsese pushes the limits of violence and gore with a story that is violent at its core, but that could have been classier with its presentation of death.

In other words, Scorsese illustrates death with little poetry and quite a bit more realism than most directors would choose to. But even Scorsese does not go the whole distance. Like so many, he seems terrified of showing the true impact of firearm deaths. It's one thing to blow away a character on screen and illustrate the back of their head splattering against the wall; it's entirely another to make the front of that same face unrecognizable with that blast or illustrate what happens to the body when it hits the ground (yea collapsing skull!). My point here is that the arguments for realism fall short with the follow-through. Scorsese, like so many directors, tries to make killing artistic and entertaining and while he ratchets up the gore as a result, it cannot be said it's purely for realism's sake. Of course, in order to show a truly realistic wasting of a human with a shot to the face, the MPAA would probably only pass the film with an "R" with one such incident.

That said, the place where the film deserved to excel was in the casting. I love great actors, but in the case of The Departed, the casting makes the movie more than the acting does. Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg are not playing characters that are a real stretch for them. Indeed, some of the best actors in the film are playing well within a niche we have seen them in before. One of my favorites, Martin Sheen, who plays Captain Queenan, is playing the role essentially identically to his bit role in Bobby. In other words, we've seen the performance before and with most of the other principle characters, it's a similar thing.

The big exception is Leonardo DiCaprio as Costigan. DiCaprio caught my eye last year in Blood Diamond and he was great in that role. It was different for him and he used the opportunity to stretch as an actor. In that part, DiCaprio plays more of a rogue and the challenge for him in The Departed is to play a straight-laced man as a rogue and his performance lives up. He is easily the shining star of The Departed and he was robbed for an acting award for either this or Blood Diamond that year. As unlikely as it might be, DiCaprio becomes completely convincing as a man on the right side of the law working on the wrong side of it. He is able to embody a ruthless quality through much of the film, but play the scenes where that is wearing on his character with an essential humanity that rings true. It is possibly his best performance to date.

And it is that that finally pushed the film up to a territory where I felt I could recommend it. The Departed is a long film that feels long (it's 151 minutes) and it has more than the requisite twists and turns to keep the average film viewer entertained. But for those looking for something truly groundbreaking or sophisticated, this didn't add up. In other words, it's fine entertainment, but it's not truly more than that. I suppose I want my Best Pictures to be more than just entertaining.

The DVD has a commentary track and a bonus disc filled with featurettes, none of which excited me enough to more enthusiastically recommend the film.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, which is available by clicking here! (Please do!)

For other works featuring police as primary characters, please check out my reviews of:
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Blade: Trinity
L.A. Confidential


5/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |