Not The Amazing Anti-Meat Argument One Might Hope For: Okja Reminds Us To Not Name Our Steaks.

The Good: Decent CG effects, Seo-Hyun Ahn acts like a pro opposite the effects, Generally good acting
The Bad: Painfully obvious themes, Simplistic plot, Unlikable characters
The Basics: Okja painfully blurs the lines between making a statement on the condition of the meat processing industry, animal rights activism, and the perils of making a food animal into a pet.


When it comes to Netflix Original Films, there have been none that have had the press momentum prior to their release like Okja. Okja, streaming today, has one of the most acclaimed casts yet for a Netflix film - Tilda Swinton, Giancarlo Esposito, and Jake Gyllenhaal being the most recognizable to American audiences - and was originally debuted at the Cannes Film Festival where it garnered a lot of positive press. Before sitting down to Okja, all I knew about the film was that Steven Yeun of The Walking Dead was in the movie and my wife warned me that, having recently lost our beloved Siberian Husky Myah, the film might be a little depressing for me.

Okja is the latest film in a fairly recent trend of movies that try to expose the conditions under which our food is made. Unlike something like Fast Food Nation (reviewed here!), which focuses on the United States and casts a wide net over the industry, Okja tells a far more intimate story. Okja almost instantly illustrates why most of us have different animals for food than we do for pets.

Opening in 2007, in New York City, Lucy Mirando takes over the powerful multinational Mirando company. Under her leadership, the new super pig that was born and reproduced in one of her holdings is being developed for future consumption. The twenty-five super pigs are shipped to different parts of the world for a ten-year competition to see which one will grow into the largest and most delicious super pig in the world. Ten years later in Korea, Mija lives with her grandfather in the hills, spending her days running around playing with her massive super pig, Okja. With the competition rushing to a close, Mija's grandfather lies to her and tells her he has bought Okja, but when a film crew comes to their home to see Okja, the truth comes comes out and Okja is taken away.

With Okja having been abducted to Seoul before her journey to New York City for the final portion of the competition, Mija runs away from home to rescue her beloved companion. Mija makes it to the Mirando offices in Seoul just in time to see Okja being taken away by truck. Mija manages to run and jump onto the truck transporting Okja, when animal rights activists smash into the truck and Okja is freed. Okja runs through Seoul wreaking havoc before she and Mija are rescued by the Animal Liberation Front activists. The leader of the ALF, Jay, tells Mija about the truth about Mirando's laboratories and he tells her that the ALF's plan is to use Okja as a spy in Mirando's laboratories. K, however, lies to Mija and Okja is taken to New York with the spy technology needed to expose Mirando.

Okja is being hailed as a masterpiece of animal rights, with viewers lauding it for illustrating just how horribly we treat animals in the food processing industry. Okja does not actually do that with any effectiveness. Instead, it simply makes painfully explicit why most people do not raise pets for food. There is a disconnect between food and pets; most people wouldn't eat meat if they got to know their food animals in advance of their slaughter. So, while Okja is being hailed as brilliant and a masterpiece, it plays out much more like a "simple problem, simple solution." In today's society, in our modern world, if one ants to be able to enjoy a hamburger, it helps not to spend time on the killing floor of a slaughter house. It is easy enough to avoid the entire thematic conflict presented in Okja.

Okja takes the stance that using animals for food is inherently and entirely wrong. For sure, in the real world, the meat industry is problematically regulated and slaughterhouse conditions are not ideal for humans or the animals slaughtered there. The Animal Liberation Front takes an extreme view about animal rights and when Jay details the ALF agenda, it is hard to take him seriously as a reliable narrator. Okja does not satisfactorily explain how the ALF got reliable intelligence on the Mirando Corporation, so it is easy to write off Jay's claims initially as the crackpot theories of extremists.

Lucy Mirando certainly appears - in closed-door meetings - as fairly idealistic and ethical, which helps to undermine the idea that Jay is a credible narrator. Lucy is clearly being manipulated by the more corporately-inclined Dawson, but for much of the film, Lucy is not presented as an actual or credible villain.

The performances in Okja are all good. Jake Gyllenhaal is virtually unrecognizable as the Mirando media presence, Johnny Wilcox. Paul Dano, Lily Collins and Steven Yeun are all credible in their intense performances of animal rights activists. All of the animal rights activist performers are great in their reaction shots throughout Okja. Tilda Swinton is her usual wonderful self as Lucy Mirando. Swinton gives viewers something new at the film's climax where she does a spot-on Jane Lynch impersonation. Shirley Henderson seems to be playing the same type character she did on Doctor Who and Harry Potter and Seo-Hyun Ahn does fine playing a little girl in love with her pet.

The direction in Okja is good.

Unfortunately, in addition to having a simple conflict with a simple solution, Okja is riddled with continuity problems. Most significant is that during the ALF's abduction of Okja, Jay has to speak through Kay for Mija to understand. Mija does not understand English initially, so Kay translates. But much of the scene has Jay speaking without Kay translating any to Mija. In a similar fashion, the suspension of disbelief in Okja is strained beyond the breaking point when Johnny Wilcox has access to the breeding area and behind-the-scenes laboratory area of the Mirando Corporation. That's simply not a location a figurehead or public face for the company would traditionally have access to and the scene - while monstrous - stands out as troubling in an unrealistic way.

Ultimately, Okja is a new presentation of the same arguments Fast Food Nation made a decade ago, that Vegans make every day and that omnivores with a strong "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle maintain in order to enjoy their burgers, chicken nuggets, and dolphin-safe tuna. And yes, I get it, humans are terrible. But so is Okja.

For other Netflix exclusive films, please check out my reviews of:
Shimmer Lake
War Machine
Girlfriend's Day
Take The 10
Clinical
Barry
Spectral
True Memoirs Of An International Assassin
I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
Special Correspondents
The Fundamentals Of Caring
The Ridiculous 6

3/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

If There Had Been No Alien . . . Would Life Be Good?

The Good: Decent acting, Generally good direction
The Bad: Entirely formulaic, Light on genuine character development
The Basics: Life is exactly what the previews made it out to be: a remake of Alien with a slightly different setting and less sophistication.


One of the nice things for me about traveling is that, living in the middle of nowhere as I do, there are quite a few more opportunities to do things out and about than I have at home. To wit, the little movie theater in my town gets one movie, played once per night, for two to three weeks. So, we never got Life in town and when I resolved to drive the 75 miles to the nearest other theater, it was not playing there. But now, I'm in a big city . . . and one theater is still playing it! So, drawn in by a single movie trailer I saw two months ago and being vaguely interested in, I went today and saw Life.

Life is one of those films that is not bad, so much as it is entirely derivative. It's Alien (reviewed here!). Life is Alien without as extensive of a backstory, without the inherent character frictions, without the long-range. Life is not bad - though it took me about an hour of driving after I came out of the film to come to that conclusion - but it is pretty shocking that it was ever made. I mean, it's a walking intellectual property lawsuit waiting to happen. Specific details of Alien end up in Life in shockingly similar ways. In Alien, when the crew is down to four characters, one character is revealed to be working to keep the alien life form alive, for example, and Life mimics that exactly . . . albeit without an android or orders from The Company. No, whomever read Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick's script and thought Life was worth greenlighting either never saw Alien, didn't realize there was another Alien franchise film coming out in 2017, or was so desperate to capitalize on the hype for Alien: Covenant that they churned out this derivative work.

Opening with a sample collector from Mars getting knocked around by space debris and tiny asteroids, the International Space Station braces for the off-course vessel. Astronaut Rory Adams performs a daring (or reckless) spacewalk to use the station's arm to stop and retrieve the sample vessel. He is successful and the next day, scientist Hugh Derry begins studying the samples. In the martian dirt, he finds a single-celled life form and, against all odds, he manages to coax it back to life.

Soon, however, the life form is growing and when there is a minor accident in the lab, the life form - nicknamed "Cal" - goes back into hibernation. Using an electrical probe, Derry manages to reanimate the life form again. Threatened, however, by the device, the being grows again, snaps the probe and breaks out of its quarantine chamber. To rescue Derry, one of the other astronauts breaks quarantine and attempts to kill the alien. The casualties quickly begin to mount as Cal grows, adapts, and attacks the humans aboard the space station as they desperately try to prevent Cal from wiping them out . . . or leaving the station to attack Earth!

Life is one of those films that is less-good the more one analyzes it. Outside its derivative plot and characters who one might feel sorry for if only for the fact that their demise is so telegraphed, Life is actually all right. Daniel Espinosa directs the film competently enough - though the music is heavyhanded from the start and there are a couple of scenes where people talk over one another in a way that makes it feel like there are far more people on the station than there are. There's only one shot where there is no clear chain of events (a light stick is lit by a character, dropped and the next shot has them with another lit stick in their hand without any clear sense of where it came from), which is a pretty small flaw in the film.

The performers all do a decent job in Life. Jake Gyllenhaal dominates the cast as David Jordan, an astronaut who has been aboard the International Space Station longer than anyone else and, despite its adverse effect on his health, would rather remain there than return to Earth. Gyllenhaal plays Jordan with a competence that makes his character instantly credible, something that cannot truly be said of Ryan Reynolds's Rory Adams. Even Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan seemed more believable - that Jordan could actually be an able test pilot for the Air Force - whereas Adams seems more like a flaccid retread of other cocky, slightly sarcastic characters Reynold's played with more distinction.

Hiroyuki Sanada, Olga Dihovichnaya and Rebecca Ferguson each play their parts in ways that the viewer has moments they genuinely care about their characters. Ariyon Bakare gives a wonderful physical performance, making the process of a CG alien absolutely wrecking his character's hand seem entirely real and palpable. Dihovichnaya similarly proves an incredible physical actress in one of the film's most intense scenes. Ferguson is credible as a woman who gets very, very cold and Sanada interacts with the virtual elements flawlessly.

But the special effects and the performances aside, Life is far more dog than gem and today I find myself happier that I didn't drive seventy-five miles to see it, than the fact that I saw it at all.

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Logan
The Great Wall
Underworld: Blood Wars

5/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Everything As Expected: Source Code Has No Real Surprises.

The Good: Acting, Moments of concept
The Bad: Plot is obvious, Characters make little sense
The Basics: Source Code might have once had the potential to be a reality-bending cult classic, but not now.



A few days ago, I got into an argument with someone on the IMDB about the best movie of the year (2011). They admitted they had not seen many movies, but they were arguing for Source Code. I was a bit surprised. Source Code came out at a time when there were plenty of other movies I actually wanted to see and I did not go see it in theaters. In fact, I made an effort not to see it because the previews informed me from the premise that it could only end one of two ways. It was either going to be a depressing ending where the protagonist realizes he cannot change the past (which seemed pretty obvious) or a reality in the machine type story a la Repo Men (reviewed here!). Either way, it didn't strike me as anything terribly new.

Still, as a cinephile and a critic, I thought I ought to sit and watch it so as to be able to legitimately declare other movies better. Having just completed the DVD of Source Code, I am saddened to say that my anticipated disappointment lived up to the actual experience. Source Code might once have been considered a great shock movie that truly messed with the heads of viewers, but after television episodes like "Cause And Effect" (reviewed here!) and films like Repo Men, Inception and Memento there was absolutely nothing in the film that surprised me. The fact that I pulled virtually every important detail from the first fifteen minutes made the seventy minutes that followed virtually unbearable.

A man is on a train, talking with a woman who clearly knows him. She is Christina and he has identification that tells him he is Sean Fentress and a reflection in the window that is not his own. Running to the bathroom, the man is engulfed in flames and awakens in a chamber. He is Colter Stevens, an Air Force pilot who is being given orders over a camera from Colleen Goodwin. Goodwin informs him that the simulation he is a part of is part of a project, Source Code, that has him reliving the final eight minutes of a train bombing that very morning. The hope is that another disaster may be averted by having Colter as Fentress relive the final memories of those on and near the train to discover who the bomber was so they might be caught in the real world.

Stevens develops attachments in the virtual reality, mostly to Christina, and soon he is both emotionally invested in the relationship and in trying to determine where he is when he comes out of the simulation. Trapped and piecing together his existence, Stevens unravels the mystery of who the bomber is and who he is and how he came to be in the project that has him using Source Code.

Sadly, there is nothing extraordinary in Source Code. For the mystery angle, it was so simple that I never second-guessed who the bomber was. I am terribly bad at guessing mysteries, Red Riding Hood which my wife and I watched earlier this week had me second-guessing constantly. With Source Code, not only did I get the bomber, I got his reasoning on the first time through the simulation. That is how obvious the film is.

But more than that, writer Ben Ripley seems to think that his audience has never seen The Matrix (reviewed here!). This ridiculous notion makes what Ripley wants to be a big surprise be anything but. The viewer that does not question exactly where Stevens is when he awakens from the Source Code simulation is one who is not at all connected to the film or the concepts. And, as alluded to, anyone who has seen The Matrix or any other virtual reality work knows there must be an interface device. The glaring lack of that should clue the viewer in in the first few moments that all is not as it seems for poor Colter Stevens.

On the plus side, Source Code is not as bad as the previews made it seem. Most notable in this regard is that what could have been a tiresome love story between Stevens and Christina goes largely undeveloped. Colter knows that Christina is dead and he cannot save her, so there are moments as he investigates the bombing where he is able to brush her off. There is enough of an emotional tether, though that he comes to care about the mission he is on and that works well.

What also works well is the basic military mindset of Colter Stevens. Stevens is programmable, so Goodwin is able to get him to sublimate his personal desires, notably contacting his father, for the mission. Stevens is disciplined and his focus and skills pay off eventually, making for a pretty satisfying sense of basic characterization.

Unfortunately, Goodwin and her boss, Dr. Rutledge, do not work nearly as well. Goodwin's ultimate actions make less sense in a military structure and Rutledge is one of the worst written characters I've seen on screen in a long time. As Colter Stevens struggles with his nature, Rutledge talks in intellectual circles with philosophical abstracts that are more annoying than helpful. Moreover, his brutish demanding nature makes no real sense for a scientist, even one motivated by ego.

The acting in Source Code is fine. Michelle Monaghan is little more than a cute face as Christina and Jeffrey Wright plays Dr. Rutledge in a fairly monolithic way, but Jake Gyllenhaal and Vera Farmiga play off one another very well. Farmiga has a great control of her face and emotes well through her eyes, making Goodwin very human. Similarly, Gyllenhaal manages to play confused and deliberate throughout the movie to make Stevens someone we almost care about.

Almost but not quite. Source Code attempts to be novel and belabors its plot functions, but Ben Ripley has nothing particularly new to say with the altered reality plot and director Duncan Jones does not make it into anything more visually impressive than we've seen before. The result is a very average film that I knock into the lower portion of the average range for insulting my intelligence.

For other works featuring Jake Gyllenhaal, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Love And Other Drugs
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Brokeback Mountain
Donnie Darko

4.5/10

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

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

| | |

Somewhere, There Is A More Miserable Version of Myself Who Would Love Brokeback Mountain!

The Good: Decent performances by the leads, Good cinematography
The Bad: Slow, Ponderous, Miserable, Message/Point
The Basics: In a disappointing movie that I'm shocked won writing awards, Brokeback Mountain is over two hours of drawn out misery for the characters and viewers.


I'm so glad I bet on Crash (reviewed here!) back in the day for Best Picture, especially now having seen Brokeback Mountain. Here's my thing (to channel Lara Means), anyone who reads a number of my reviews will easily determine I'm a liberal and quite openly supportive of gay and lesbian civil rights. Homosexuality is not some weird novelty to me. Therefore, I would just like (ONCE, at least!) to sit down to a movie involving gay characters who are actually . . . happy. Every major movie involving lgb characters at one point or another in the film comes up against homophobia, violence or self-hatred. In short, there are no real good lgb love stories that are on the order of stereotype-free, lighthearted romance that there are millions of for heterosexuals. Lesbianism is chic enough to come close and there are shows with openly lesbian characters and such, but gay men in movies only go that way - if Hollywood is any indication - because there are no other options and/or they are violent, self-hating men.

Man am I sick of that.

Jack Twist and Ennis Del Mar are ranchers who are charged with guarding some grazing sheep on Brokeback Mountain for a summer. This work does not pay well and they sit around complaining and eating canned beans and being generally bored. However, as the summer goes on, they hook up with some violent sex, refuse to talk about it and when the summer ends, they go their separate ways. Ennis gets married and Jack has a failed rodeo career and hooks up with a rodeo woman and years pass before Jack and Ennis see one another again. What follows then are the years they spend lonely with women and families between seeing one another on occasion again and zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

My review of Brokeback Mountain might seem especially harsh, but anytime I'm fully awake watching a movie (in the daytime!) and I fall asleep and have to rewatch half of it, it makes me think it can't be the greatest movie in the world. Ang Lee, who won Best Director for this film, is on my list now for this and Hulk. What happened to the man who made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon?!

The problematic aspect of Brokeback Mountain, outside being unbearably slow, is that the characters are miserable. This is not a movie about two men who love one another, this is a movie about two miserable people who hook up and spend twenty years bumping into one another to continue their misery. Their encounters are frequently laced with violence that suggests neither is very loving and again, we've seen it and it's simply tired.

What is far better than the characters is the acting. Brokeback Mountain features some pretty spectacular acting. The supporting performances, like Randy Quaid and Anne Hathaway, are decent, but the movie lives or dies on the performances of Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger. If the script had been better, it would have lived completely on the performances of those two men.

Gyllenhaal is able to go from being a smiling, generally cheerful persona to a moody and angry man in the blink of an eye and this ability is on full display in Brokeback Mountain. Gyllenhaal plays Jack with exceptional range and were it not for his moments of energy, the movie would be a complete failure.

It is Heath Ledger who rules the screen, though, as Ennis. Ledger plays Ennis with dark, brooding seriousness and suppressed violence in a way that never hints at any of the other characters he has portrayed. It is Ledger who creates much of the mood of the movie with his quiet desperation and mumbled drawl. It is Ledger whose performance makes Brokeback Mountain agonizing to watch for the sheer human misery of it.

So, damn you, Heath Ledger. In a movie otherwise bereft of enjoyment, Ledger's performance pulls the movie out of the depths of garbage and forces the viewer to acknowledge how impressive his work is.

Also impressive is the cinematography. From the beginning, Brokeback Mountain looks good. Of course, Ang Lee and company are filming unspoiled, wide open spaces in the mountains, so it's hard to go wrong. As the joke in Just Shoot Me once went, "You took one of the most gorgeous women on the planet and made her look beautiful; what did you use? Some kind of film?" It's hard to go wrong with sweeping nature shots.

Sadly, it's also not enough to save a movie; the best it can pull up is a Don Henley video. Brokeback Mountain, a movie I had been looking forward to, resonates with me as one of the biggest disappointments for a serious film I've experienced in a long time. The only movie that was more unredeemably depressing I can think of was the terrible House Of Sand And Fog. I think I need to go watch Magnolia (reviewed here!) again just to remember how good a depressing movie can be.

For other works featuring Jake Gyllenhaal, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Love And Other Drugs
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Donnie Darko

4/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

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

| | |

Anne Hathaway's Breasts, Jake Gyllenhaal's Butt And A Great Story All Make Love And Other Drugs Eminently Memorable!

The Good: Acting, Characters, Story
The Bad: The final third has serious pacing issues.
The Basics: Love And Other Drugs is more than just a delightful fantasy for fans of Anne Hathaway, it is one of Edward Zwick's best works!


My wife has a real beef with me, one which put me going to the movies without her on Thanksgiving. It seems, early in our relationship two years ago, as we were courting one another, I told the woman I had just met that I had more than a little thing for Anne Hathaway. I suppose it probably happened when she tried to get me to watch Hoodwinked our first weekend together and that's when I probably said, "That would be great; I love Anne Hathaway." Ugh. That has been haunting me since and my wife is very unhappy whenever I want to see any film with Hathaway (though we made it through Alice In Wonderland together just fine earlier this year!). So, when I was taking the car today while my wife was at work, it was with disbelief she looked at me when I told her "I want to see Love And Other Drugs because I like Edward Zwick's other works!" Sure, Hathaway is a big selling point for me, but last year, Edward Zwick had a perfect film with Defiance and that type movie always gets me to go to the next film by the director.

Love And Other Drugs was on its way to hitting "perfect film" status with me as well, but then the film hits a weird wall in the final third and the pacing and plot go into a wonky, dead zone that saps the life out of it. Unfortunately, the more I consider the film, the more I am forced to confess that I have no clue how to fix the film. Honestly, Love And Other Drugs seemed like it was going the way of the charming romance and would end one of three ways: a breakup, a happy ending (until I actually heard that Maggie had Parkinson's, I thought the reference early in the film to unintended benefits to prescription drugs would yield a surprise cure for Maggie from Viagra), or the inevitable tragedy. Zwick and his co-writers, Marshall Herskovitz and Charles Randolph, go a different way but not before dragging the audience through a more plot-predictable section that left me feeling disappointed. And believe me, that's something I never expected to say in a movie that offered me pretty much all of the Anne Hathaway I could want (at least while still being married!). Fortunately, Zwick and Hathaway (and entirely surprising for me, Jake Gyllenhaal) make a movie that is largely satisfying and is one that ought to endure through Oscar Pandering Season at the box office.

From the moment the film starts with the distinctive chords of the Spin Doctors' "Two Princes," Love And Other Drugs establishes a very firm time and place in 1996 and 1997 as Pfizer exploded its profits by releasing Viagra. The film is a Zwick/Herskovitz dramedy that utilizes many elements that viewers have come to expect from the great team. There is a lot of humor, the film is sexy as hell and the characters have more depth than most films that are under two hours long.

Jamie Randall is an electronics salesman who is exceptional with the ladies and with selling. After he has an affair with his boss's girlfriend in the store, he is fired. After a stifling dinner with his vastly more successful family, Jamie goes to work for Pfizer, selling Zoloft and Zanex to health professionals. Stuck in the mid-Ohio region, Jamie is pressured to meet near-impossible quotas under the tutelage of Bruce Winston. Jamie's big target, that can help him meet all of the quotas, is Dr. Stan Knight. After several bad attempts to get into Knight's office, Jamie succeeds and there he meets Maggie Murdock, a 26 year-old who has been suffering the onset of Stage 1 Parkinson's Disease.

Beaten up a bit by Maggie, Jamie becomes fascinated by her and organizes a date with her. Despite analyzing the meeting for exactly what it is, an attempt to hook up, Maggie goes for Jamie and soon they are frequently frolicking together. But then, Jamie manages to get exactly what he needs for his job, which is to be one of the first salespeople for Viagra. As Jamie becomes very successful, he actually falls in love with Maggie and becomes more devoted to helping her through her rough future. But Maggie does not want Jamie's love, which she mistakes as pity, and the two are cast into more turbulent emotional waters.

Love And Other Drugs is charming and surprisingly deep and much of it has to do with the casting and the direction from Edward Zwick. The story starts as very much a typical "boy meets girl" romance and frankly, Jamie is not initially likable. As well, Maggie is not terribly likable as she is angry at the world and at Jamie. She is initially characterized as deeply intelligent and self-aware and the first scene they share reminds one of the way the protagonist from The Social Network spoke. Maggie psychoanalyzes Jamie and the way he approaches all relationships. She has his number from the very beginning and from the moment they start to move toward a relationship, the viewer is rooting for them. We root for them not from a sense of artifice; not just because these are the two stars or two incredibly good-looking people, but because they have enough to bond with to start a genuine relationship. In this regard, Love And Other Drugs truly satisfies.

What is odd is how on the surface Love And Other Drugs is an indictment of Big Pharma, while it still manages to plug it. The pharmaceutical companies are taken to task for prioritizing men's erections over Parkinson's research and rightly so. In this way, Zwick continues his trend toward social commentary in his films and that succeeds wonderfully. But throughout the first half, a supplemental character is thrown in who benefits greatly from the use of Prozac, which Jamie is throwing out. So, while the movie seems to be pro-Voloft, it has a strange undertone plugging Prozac.

And as for my salacious title, yes, there is quite a bit of nudity in Love And Other Drugs. The thing is, actors and actresses frequently mention that they will only do nudity if it is germane to the story. Fortunately, if that was one of Anne Hathaway's hangups, she picked a film that starts with some of the most sensible nudity and moves onto the delightfully gratuitous. Hathaway and Zwick push nudity in the beginning as a character aspect. In fact, when Hathaway's Maggie bares her breast to Dr. Knight, she does it with a fearless quality that is absolutely indicative of her character's strength. Maggie is forthright and the way she reacts to learning Jamie is just a sales rep and not an intern, is delightful and holds up for her character. After that, there are several scenes with Jamie and Maggie in bed and those frequently lead to more character development between the two.

In fact, one of the most delightful moments of the film involves the conversation that comes when Jamie and Maggie do not have sex the first time. Sometimes, that type scene is an inevitable plot point, but in Love And Other Drugs, the scene works. Between that and the moment that Maggie demands Jamie tell her five good things about himself flesh out the two characters in ways that make viewers want to see more of them. Jamie's humanity is brought out, as well, by the way he treats his brother Josh. Josh starts with great wealth, but a severe deficiency of ambition when his marriage falls apart and Jamie takes him in.

When the movie goes into a seminar on the effects of Parkinson's Disease, Zwick scores some high emotional points, but unfortunately, after that the film falls apart. The character choices are not as compelling and I began to feel cheated. The reason my emotional reaction was so very strong was that far earlier in the film, I found myself actually caring for the characters and that is a true gift in film today.

Zwick and his team also deserve a lot of credit for the casting and the use of their actors. Anne Hathaway, despite my obvious bias toward her, is fabulous as Maggie. She is funny and heartwrenching and she is easy to watch. Her facial expressions are great as she creates Maggie as a quirky and direct character. When she has Maggie twitch from her flare-ups of Parkinson's, the viewer buys it completely. And she has great on-screen chemistry with Jake Gyllenhaal.

Gyllenhaal works some surprising magic for the viewer. If this year's Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time had him as a flat action hero who was difficult to watch for his monolithic qualities, Love And Other Drugs provides him with a rebirth for the charismatic side of the actor. Beyond his shining eyes and winning smile, Gyllenhaal is delightful with his deliveries and he plays both the fun and the strength of his character well. The serious elements of Jamie's character would not be viable were it not for Gyllenhaal's acting, but there never came a moment when he is facing Hathaway and trying to project the idea that he is a solid guy and he doesn't land it.

Zwick is also smart with the casting of the supplemental characters. Hank Azaria is solid as Dr. Knight and Zwick's use of Oliver Platt is wonderful. Indeed, one of the most wonderful, subtle moments in the film happens in the first five minutes when Jamie and Bruce are sitting side by side and we realize that Platt's Bruce is just the aged version of Jamie! That is genius casting. And even if Josh Gad just seems to be lining himself up as the next Jonah Hill, his scenes as Josh in the film are good.

Ultimately, what Love And Other Drugs has going for it is a good story, well presented with characters that endure well after the final credits roll. For all my wife's accusations that I still hold a torch for Hathaway, the strength of the film might be most in the fact that the longer I watched the film alone, the more I missed my wife and felt eager to see her again. Love And Other Drugs captures perfectly the excitement of real romance and will make one want to be with the one they love. And with rising ticket prices at the movie theaters, it is arguably the best film for adults to spend their time and money on this Oscar Pandering (or holiday) Season!

For works featuring Anne Hathaway, please check out my reviews of:
Anne Hathaway For Wonder Woman!
Family Guy Presents: It's A Trap!
Valentine's Day
Twelfth Night Soundtrack
Rachel Getting Married
Passengers
The Princess Diaries

8.5/10

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

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

Jake Gyllenhaal Is Not Johnny Depp And Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time Flops.

The Good: Good action/adventure feel and sequences, Special effects
The Bad: Light on character development, Obvious plot and character development, Disappointingly obvious progression, Disney conceits.
The Basics: In an attempt to rule the theaters with a new franchise, Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer make a boring miscalculation with Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time.


I know that I am in the minority of reviewers when it comes to the Pirates Of The Caribbean movies. Still, I stand by those reviews because they are basically overrated popcorn movies which have as much to do with merchandising Johnny Depp as they do with telling a decent story. I mention this at the outset of my review of Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time because not only is the film produced by Pirates Of The Caribbean producer Jerry Bruckheimer, it is also obvious that it is attempting to establish another franchise like Pirates, presumably to fill the gap until the next Pirates film is ready. However, they failed. And hard.

Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time is loosely based upon a video game franchise by the same name, much like Pirates Of The Caribbean was based upon a Disney World ride. Sadly, this film has about the emotional resonance of a video game and while the effects are worthwhile in most parts, the plot and character developments are so full of holes one could sail a pirate ship through them. This comes from two essential problems with the film: the time travel element and the emphasis in the film on parkour. Before I get too far into critiquing the film, let me address the latter point first.

For those unfamiliar with it, parkour is a current “phenomenon” sweeping people in urban areas who have too much time on their hands and a physical gift which is grossly misapplied. While some define parkour as the “art” of moving in a straight line, no matter the obstacle, I look at parkour as making one’s life intentionally difficult by forcing oneself to climb, jump and straddle when such movements are in no way necessary. So, for example, while one person might walk down a flight of stairs, through a turnstyle and around a fence to get into, say, a subway terminal, a traceur or traceuse (one who does parkour) might leap down the stairs or jump between hand rails to descend, leap over the turnstyle and climb over the fence to make the same journey. There’s a kung-fu movie feel to watching people perform parkour and while there’s a guy who is currently credited with “creating” parkour, it has clearly been around for decades before he put a name to it. The point of this little diatribe is this: parkour requires physical agility and strength, but at the end of the day seems to be a pointless waste of time and energy for most people. I long suspected that, like track and field events (or soccer) it is far more interesting to be participating in the activity than just watching others do that. Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time went a long way to proving that thesis. Throughout the film characters, most notably Jake Gyllenhaal’s Dastan perform parkour and while it is initially interesting, it wears thin early in the movie and one is stuck watching Gyllenhaal run, jump and swing when he could use other methods of transport. Director Mike Newell seems to be desperately hoping that viewers will be so astounded by how Gyllenhaal and costar Gemma Arterton (known for her role in Clash Of The Titans, reviewed here!) do their own stunts that they will neglect to notice that many of the situations which require the stunts are utterly unnecessary.

It’s a popcorn movie, nothing more.

Dastan is living on the streets in Persia when he comes to the attention of King Sharaman who adopts Dastan as a Prince so his own sons might not fight for the throne. Raised as an equal and a son of Persia, Dastan is by Sheik Amar and aided by Prince Garsiv, the head of the army, Dastan prepares for the day when he might be called upon to lead or fight. That time comes when Dastan leads a military operation that lays siege to a neighboring land. There, he discovers the dagger with the Sands Of Time, which he learns about from its protector, Princess Tamina, who - as a captured subject - is to become the wife of one of the Princes.

But Tamina does not take her job lying down and when Dastan is framed for the murder of Sharaman, she and Dastan are forced to flee. Their running through the desert puts them in league with a rogue and swindler, Sheik Amar, and his knife-throwing lackey. As Dastan tries to keep possession of the dagger, Tamina leads him further into the desert to the source of its power, unwittingly leading its greatest enemy there as well!

Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time is exactly what we have come to expect of big budget special-effects driven summer blockbusters. Disney is betting heavily on this one and while the teenybopper crowd might find Jake Gyllenhaal, who was admittedly great in Donnie Darko (click here for that review!), to be a dreamy substitute for Johnny Depp, the flick is almost inevitably doomed to failure for two big reasons: 1. it’s nothing we haven’t seen before and 2. There’s no hook.

The first problem is the death knell of the movie. Nizam is as monolithic a villain as virtually any Disney villain and there is a pointless quality to him and his goals. Evocative of Jafar from Aladdin, Nizam is just monolithically bent on ruling the world and remaining alive, which makes his character very limited. Whenever I see such a character now, the first question I find myself asking is “what is motivating this person to want to rule everything?” If I can come up with an answer, my next question is “does it fit the character?” Nizam does not have any philosophy or idea to better anything, he just wants it all. And frankly, unrestrained greed is a motive that becomes harder and harder to watch the older I get. Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time does nothing new with the concept and as such, the villain seems very one-sided in a way that is utterly boring.

As a result, Dastan comes to seem equally boring. While Jake Gyllenhaal does a decent job of looking shocked when he comes to realize how his dagger works, but beyond that he is remarkably white bread. I recognize the irony of characterizing the buffed up, tanned version of Gyllenhaal that way, but his character of Prince Dastan truly has no unique traits and just as Nizam’s monolithic evil sense seems over-the-top, the loyalty and bland acceptance that his mission is righteous falls flat as well. Dastan is not internally tormented by the power he wields and he never comes into his own as a realized character of any interest. In other words, he is important only because he is focused on the most and the viewer is told he is important.

This leads us to the hook, or lack thereof. While Pirates Of The Caribbean had Jack Sparrow who was mumbling crazy things and doing his own thing much of the time, Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time has no such catch, no such unique or defining quality. As a result, this becomes a pretty bland and straightforward hero narrative and because the protagonist doesn’t inspire the viewer or amuse them, the film flops into a rut of action films that is actually likely to alienate the teen girl audience which made Pirates so big.

As for the Sands of Time, within the dagger they create a 10 second to one minute time playback option for the person with the dagger (usually Dastan) and that is mildly amusing, but more an excuse to make a special effect which is at times nauseating and others mildly intriguing. This effect-based and stunt-based work does nothing to negate the fact that the film is disturbingly dull to watch and for those looking for something new, they are likely to be disappointed. Instead of wasting one’s money seeing this in theaters, they might as well go back and rewatch The Mummy. At least that effectively mixed humor and action. This does not.

The acting in Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time never sparkles. Sir Ben Kingsley is never given enough to work with as Nizam and Jake Gyllenhaal’s acting in this consists mostly of running and jumping and slashing at people and computer generated things. As for Gemma Arteron, she is easy to watch, but is hardly a shining gem of acting in this work.

In other words, there’s no reason to hold your breath for this latest Disney cashgrab.

For other Disney films, please check out my reviews of:
Toy Story 3
The Little Mermaid
The Nightmare Before Christmas

4/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here for an organized listing!

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



| |

Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut Is A Confused, Wonderful Film With An Awesome Blu-Ray Presentation!

The Good: Great story, Blu-Ray includes both versions, Decent bonus features, Good acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Ambiguity may be making up for weaker concept moments.
The Basics: A creepy, high-concept film, Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut follows one young man through the last days of the world in the late 1980s!


Somewhere on a laptop that is decomposing, there is my original review of Donnie Darko almost completed and when I restarted the review, I thought that the loss of the original might actually be a decent form of fate. Since I originally watched Donnie Darko – The Director's Cut, I watched writer-director Richard Kelley’s subsequent film, The Southland Tales, which I discovered I was one of the very few people to enjoy, and the original theatrical release of Donnie Darko. I can see why this movie ended up as a “cult favorite.” It’s too weird for the mainstream. That said, I find I am once again in the minority on a Richard Kelley film: I enjoyed the Director's Cut more than most anyone else I know.

The fundamental difference between Donnie Darko and Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut is the restoration of about twenty minutes of scenes as well as interstitials that help to explain (or confuse) the plot/concept for the viewer. The interstitials are inter-scene flashes which include text from The Philosophy Of Time Travel (a book in the film) which more clearly spells out Donnie’s place in the film and in the paradox he is helping to create through his actions. What the Director's Cut does not do (which I feared it might given comments comrades of mine made back in the day when both films came out) is dumb down the film. Instead of leaving the bulk of the conceptual work of the film up in the air, the Director's Cut assigns specific terms to the characters and their relationships in an alternate universe scenario, which (more than time travel) is what the film is preoccupied with.

Donnie Darko, a troubled young man arguably suffering from schizophrenia, sleepwalks at night, leaving his more conservative parents worried and troubled. One night, Donnie follows Frank (a six-foot tall bunny) out into the night and as a result, he manages to avoid being killed by a falling jet engine that crashes into his room. But Frank has a dire prediction for Donnie; the world will end in a little over twenty-eight days. Frank, troubled by this but feeling powerless to stop the impending destruction of the planet, returns to school the next day where he meets Gretchen Ross, a new student who has arrived in the suburbs because her step father tried to stab her mother to death. Drawn to Gretchen, Donnie works with a therapist to try to stop his nightmarish visions.

As the doomsday date (and Halloween) approach, Donnie causes unrest at school by combating the gym-teacher-turned-health-teacher’s efforts to indoctrinate the students with the current self-help guru's, Jim Cunningham, philosophies. Rejecting his dialectic view of the world, he falls in with a rebellious English teacher and her science teacher boyfriend. In his attempt to understand what is happening to him, Donnie becomes fascinated with the book Philosophy Of Time Travel, which was written by an aged local woman. As Donnie confronts Frank, Cunningham and his minions, and his own fears, doomsday rushes toward all of them and Donnie may be the key to saving them all.

What I enjoyed most about Donnie Darko was that while the film takes a lot of time to be moody, cerebral and creepy, the film always has something going on. Most films have a direct purpose and story and it is obvious from almost the very beginning. Donnie Darko does not. Instead, it creates a very real world where there are all sorts of things going on. Sure, Donnie is having a mental breakdown (arguably) and problems with his parents, but that does not matter to his English teacher Karen Pomeroy. Instead, she is preoccupied with keeping her job after one of Donnie’s nocturnal journeys cause him to mimic the controversial actions from a book the health teacher, Kitty Farmer, wants banned from the curriculum. While Donnie inadvertently exposes the secret life of Cunningham, his sister, Samantha, and her dance troupe win a place on Star Search. While the film's title seems to indicate the film will be focused entirely on Donnie Darko, the truth is, the movie takes a sufficient amount of time to explore the reality of the time and place it is set in, including a ton of references to the Dukakis/Bush election, which is impending at the time of the action of the film.

On that front, from almost the opening of the film, I (as a writer and seasoned film viewer) spent the film waiting for a very specific moment and perhaps the greatest praise I can think to bestow upon Donnie Darko is that when the moment came (it was inevitable), it did not disappoint me. Instead, Donnie Darko is a film that feels extraordinarily well put-together, even if it takes an engaged viewer to truly appreciate all that is going on. Like the television show Lost,” this is not a film to have on in the background, one must actively watch it and put the pieces together (hopefully in advance of Donnie!). And while the movie might seem plot heavy, it actually does an excellent job of creating vivid characters, especially Donnie.

Donnie Darko, whose super hero-like name is addressed forthrightly by Gretchen in the film, is actually a likable protagonist and while the viewer might become confused by all he is going through, to his credit, Donnie seems confused by the string of events that seem centered around him. Frank (the Bunny) torments Donnie in many ways and as Donnie begins to perceive the way time and space bend and flow, he is suitably unsettled. But some of the film's most enjoyable moments are the simple character moments: Donnie at home having a conversation with his family around the dinner table, Donnie and Gretchen fumbling through the beginnings of a teenage romance, and Donnie and his friends talking about the Smurfs (seriously, hilarious!). Donnie is a character it is very easy to empathize with because he is told he is ill, but we see little evidence of that, so we feel as confused as he does.

Donnie is played with a slack-jawed, dead-eyed physical performance by Jake Gyllenhaal. Gyllenhaal is articulate enough to make his character's rebellious scenes seem smart and not just like those of a generic angsty teenager. Similarly, Jena Malone, whose work in Saved! has a wonderful physical presence in the movie, characterizing the insecurities of a teenage girl thrown into a new social climate wonderfully. She has a more quiet quirkiness whereas Gyllenhaal’s chemistry with her comes from his character's almost constant chatter. The cast is supported by an amazing assembly of character actors, including Drew Barrymore, Mary McDonnell, Holmes Osborne, Beth Grant and Patrick Swayze. Despite having a number of young talents (including Seth Rogen in a bit supporting role), the acting is surprisingly good all around. Richard Kelley assembled an exceptional group of actors and gets consistently good performances out of one and all.

On Blu-Ray, Donnie Darko looks exceptional and sounds great, too (audio effects are one of the richer portions of the experience, if one has a home theater equipped for it). The Blu-Ray includes both The Director's Cut and the original Donnie Darko and this makes a comparative set of viewings very easy. The theatrical cut features two different commentary tracks and the disc also includes all of the bonus featurettes from the DVD of “The Director's Cut,” including the theatrical trailer for Donnie Darko: The Director's Cut and an exploration of the fan base surrounding the film.

Either way, Donnie Darko is smart, but not a film that hands the viewer all of the answers. My wife thinks the hype over how great the film is comes from a fan base who doesn’t want to admit that the ending is just plain terrible.

For other weird and generally spectacular cinematic, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
Dark City
Passengers

8.5/10

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

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