More Mallrats Means More Than Just More Money For View Askew

The Good: Funny, makes a lot more sense with new cut, good extras, preservation of original
The Bad: Still weak in some areas, Packaging; back tells nothing about movie! Simplified resolutions.
The Basics: Set in a mall and populated by weird, interesting, funny characters, Mallrats always gave the impression of being a "little movie that could," that simply didn't. Now it works!


Mallrats and the Malltrats Tenth Anniversary Edition are essentially two movies, so my review is actually two reviews for the price of one. Mallrats was the second film produced by View Askew productions that was directed by Kevin Smith and produced by Scott Mosier. Following on the success of Clerks, the pair took their production company to Universal for their first big studio production. The result was a color film with a higher standard of production and recognizable actors. At the same time, it's still a movie loaded with "dick and fart jokes," as Kevin Smith says frequently in the extras.

Mallrats - Take 1 (the theatrical cut, the review that properly belongs here) as it was released in the theaters and originally on DVD is a romp around a mall wherein two characters lament their day of being single. T.S. Quint is dumped by Brandi Svenning when Quint's callous pre-film comments lead to a fellow student's death. In another part of town, Brodie is being dumped by his girlfriend for being an insensitive, comic book-loving lout. To lament their singlehood, both young men end up at the local mall where they discover Svenning's father's gameshow set being built. Their day then becomes an oscillation between attempts to destroy the set (utilizing the nefarious Jay and Silent Bob) and attempting to reconcile with their respective girlfriends.

In the process of telling this story, Kevin Smith's world is fleshed out with intriguing characters. Jay and Silent Bob return from Clerks, Ben Affleck appears as a Shannon a man with an obscure sexual fetish, and Ethan Suplee sort of takes on a role from Clerks (see the commentary for that). In Mallrats, we get Brodie, one of Smith's most interesting and developed characters. He's intelligent, acerbic and witty.

More than anything, Mallrats serves to create an intriguing location. Just as the Quick Stop in Clerks is a well-defined place and time, the Eden Prarie Mall in Mallrats becomes a distinct location populated by bizarre individuals fresh out of Kevin Smith's warped humor and imagination.

The acting is one of the highlights to this effect; Jason Lee is excellent at Brodie. Lee has excellent timing, especially of facial expressions in response to statements made in his vicinity. Shannon Dougherty is quite good as Brodie's girlfriend, Rene. She has a softer cast to her than the tabloids would paint the actress out to have. Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith play Jay and Silent Bob well, making them into something more than the pointless dancing idiots they appear as in Clerks.

While Clerks often receives great praise and Mallrats receives great criticism, I think the critics got it wrong. Clerks has charm in that it makes a lot of messages. Mallrats develops characters well. And it's funny. If you read my reviews, often you find I have some problem with comedies in that they fail to hold up over multiple viewings. Mallrats remains funny after several watchings.

And it is funny. Brodie has some lines that are flat out hilarious. And more than that, Mallrats illustrates perfectly Kevin Smith's ability to sustain a joke. Recurring jokes pop up throughout this film. They work well.

Outside a simple resolution, that is how simplistically the female characters resolve actions and emotions with their men, this film works very well as a character study as two young men explore loss and redemption.

For his part, T.S. has a lot of airtime. He's attempting to resolve things with Brandi and he often seems lackluster and depressed. Jeremy London, who plays T.S., works well in those ways. He plays down T.S. and that portrays the character well.

In short, Mallrats is a fun film, but in its original incarnation, it does not live up to its potential. Seen in clips of deleted scenes is a much more sensible film that works better. The viewer of the original Mallrats on DVD feels somewhat cheated. Like Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, it seems Mallrats was cut from its original vision to be something it truly is not. In this case, we get to the mall much quicker.

But what it is is a movie with dialog that is fast and natural, the characters are interesting and funny. It's worth your time, if for nothing else than to get you into Kevin Smith's universe.

Review 2 - Mallrats: 10th Anniversary Edition - For the tenth anniversary, Smith and Mosier recut the film with the previously deleted footage in as well as alternate takes and footage that appeared in the television version so a new movie is created. Fortunately, the original is also on the disc, as are all of the bonus features from the original DVD release, making this the comprehensive Mallrats collection.

The tenth anniversary recut of Mallrats, then, tells the story of two couples that have recently broken up. Following a disastrous night at the Governor's Ball, T.S. Quint is dumped by his girlfriend, Brandi. Brandi's father is trying desperately to make it as a television producer and has arranged for a pilot of a dating gameshow to be produced at the local mall. Brandi commits to being the bachelorette on the show, much to Quint's disgust.

At the same time, Brody, a slacker who was dating Rene finds himself dumped by her. Tired of his prioritizing video games over her, Rene leaves Brody. Brody, accompanied by Quint, heads to the mall for solace. Not to buy things, not to work, just to enjoy the environment. This is the story of the day two slackers try to win back their girlfriends by ruining a gameshow at the mall.

It is a silly plot and one too common in movies geared toward people in their late teens, early twenties. The truth is, though, Smith's new version (which was his original shooting script, apparently) makes everything make a great deal more sense. Instead of a nebulous fight filled with exposition, we see Brandi and Quint go through a situation that is both ridiculous and dangerous and get torn apart as a result.

Brody's story remains virtually unchanged and with good reason. His character's travails made perfect sense in the original, so there was nothing significant that needed alteration. His tumultuous relationship with Rene continues as if this was not a recut.

Despite Kevin Smith's warning at the beginning of the recut that declares this is the version that should never have been, the new version of Mallrats makes a lot more sense while preserving some of the best humor of the original film. Gone is the opening monologue that barely relates to the scene that opens the movie, gone are some of the awkward lines that were needed to fill the gaps left by the changed beginning (like the guy in the parking lot who gets punched by Quint - in the original - for asking if he used to date Brandi) and the use of alternate cuts makes the viewer feel like they are watching a completely different movie.

What hasn't changed in terms of the plot is the Jay and Silent Bob subplot, the Willam Black plot and most of Trish's part. Fans of Jay and Silent Bob need not worry, your boys are unharmed.

More significantly, the quality of the acting has not changed. Because this is a recut, not a redo, the acting is what it was. And a lot of credit must go to actor Jason Lee. This was his first motion picture and he does outstanding, clearly establishing himself with an acting presence that foreshadows his vibrant career. In fact, Lee is given a rather difficult acting assignment; play a slacker without appearing to play a slacker and without underselling the part. Lee mixes the right amount of verbal ambition and bad posture to replicate the archetypal . . . well, mall rat.

And outside using the characters for exposition (we never do quite find out why Brody knows Trish, but Quint does not), the new footage makes the characters make a great deal more sense. We get the impression that Brandi is actually quite intelligent and working toward something and that she feels her future is jeopardized by Quint's shenanigans. T.S. comes across more like a guy who actually cares about Brandi than he did in the original cut. And Rene works rather well as a young woman who is just plain fed up.

The new cut features extra DVD bonuses, like the Clerks X cut, the new Mallrats features brand new commentary, an introduction to the new cut by Kevin Smith and a pretty cool "Mallrats Tenth Anniversary Question and Answer Session" which is a real treat for any fan to watch. Ultimately the viewer and fan of View Askew movies is granted an all-around tighter movie that makes it worth viewing, even for people who did not quite like the original. And for those who did enjoy the first cut, it's here too!

For other movies by Kevin Smith, please visit my reviews of:
Clerks
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back
Jersey Girl
Clerks II
Zack And Miri Make A Porno
Cop Out
Red State

7.5/10

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.
| | |

Almost Famous Is Almost Decent . . . Almost, But Not Quite

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of decent directing, One or two characters
The Bad: Overall pacing, General mood, Pointless characters, Most of the movie
The Basics: When William Miller is offered the opportunity of a lifetime to write for Rolling Stone, he takes it and embarks on a pointless cross-country trip with the group Stillwater.


Every now and then, there is a film that has a pretty tremendous cast, but the movie fails to utilize the actors in such a way as to produce a great movie. In such circumstances, I usually blame the director and/or the writer. In the case of Almost Famous, which stars such usually impressive talents as Jason Lee, Frances McDormand, Anna Paquin, Faruza Balk, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the blame for the "eh" feeling I left the movie with would have to go to writer/director Cameron Crowe.

Almost Famous follows 15 year-old William Miller, boy genius, on the road with the band Stillwater, as the youth attempts to get an interview with the band for Rolling Stone. Alas, William's many attempts to complete the assignment are foiled by the guitarist of Stillwater, Russell Hammond, who - despite being the most sympathetic and trusting of William - fails to grant the boy an actual interview. What follows, then, is William witlessly accompanying the band around the country as it slowly gains in popularity and William becomes more and more drawn to Russell's groupie in all but name, Penny Lane.

First, what goes right? You know how when The Blair Witch Project (reviewed here!) came out, there were loads of people who believed (snicker, snicker) that the movie was an actual documentary? You know, the people who believed the story in the movie actually was a found video showing three people getting lost and disappearing in the woods? Well, Almost Famous does something very right and that is creating the mystique of Stillwater. Heck, even the name sounds like a real '70s band! But the two most visible members of the band, Jason Lee (as Jeff Bebe) and Billy Crudup (as Russell) act like rock stars in the movie with such fluidity that when the band name Stillwater is dropped alongside such recognizable names as Black Sabbath, David Bowie and Led Zeppelin, it's easy for the viewer to eat it up.

But no, there is no band Stillwater. Or there was not a band named Stillwater in the '70s that was opening for Black Sabbath. And, for the record, we seriously doubt there is a Blair Witch.

So, the performances of Jason Lee and Billy Crudup are notable not because they seem to be acting like Generic Rock Stars on their way up, but rather they have the impression of being very real, very specific individuals which is a credit both to their performances and to the writing of their characters. I'm crediting their performances slightly higher because outside of the two of them, the only character that truly pops is Elaine Miller, William's mother. She is portrayed as humorless, intelligent, and protective by Frances McDormand, who rises easily and effectively to the challenge.

So, that's three performances on the plus side. Then there's the rest. Patrick Fugit might be a wonderful actor, he certainly has the subtle facial expressions that could make him one. Perhaps why I am unable to judge is because Fugit is playing a subtle, low-key character. William Miller is a pretty unassuming, unthreatening and actually unmemorable kind of guy. How does one play that and make the character interesting? It's hard. I'm not sure Fugit is successful here. In the film's lone moment of William bursting out of anonymous obscurity to win his way backstage with Stillwater, Fugit sells the audience on William's brilliance at adapting, if not his sudden extroversion. His final outburst in the movie, near the end of the film, fails to sell at all. And in between, we are left wondering why such a shy, dedicated young man with such potential attracts Penny Lane and can't manage to get a statement from Russell.

Similarly, we never see a real strong motivation for Penny Lane, who is perhaps the iconic image associated with Almost Famous. Lane follows Stillwater around and is mistress to Russell, though she abhors the term "groupie" and has organized her fellow "band aides" into a workforce that will not put out, only perform oral sex. She, however, breaks this code. Lane is a somewhat nonsensical character that is very much a "type" without being much of an individual. Ironically, Lane is loosely based on someone in reality according to the closing credits of the film.

In fact, none of the characters truly pop. Lane is a giant question mark for purpose, William is brilliant and motivated but only so far, Russell and Jeff resist acting on one of the biggest potential opportunities for their band by not cooperating with William, and the other "band aides" are equally unexplained as Penny. Lester Bangs, who has some of the film's most memorable lines and a decent position in the film is not explored enough to even be considered having depth.

What kills Almost Famous for me is the pace. It's one thing to have murky characters one does not quite understand. It's one thing to have actors put in parts that underuse their talents (poor Anna Paquin, in this case!). It's an entirely different thing to have wonderful actors playing characters of uncertain motivation doing almost nothing. That's what happens in Almost Famous. Almost nothing happens. The protagonist is dragged around the country for almost an hour and a half (the first half hour of the movie is quite engaging) and it feels like forever. Seriously. I found myself looking at the DVD clock counting off the seconds more frequently in this film than in any I have seen in recent memory. That's a sure sign of poor pacing.

This movie might be nostalgic for people who were into the early-70s Rock and Roll scene, but for me it was a slow, pointless march of people who made little sense. Save the William's mother, who makes sense, but ultimately is a punchline.

For other works with Billy Crudup, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Watchmen
Mission: Impossible III
Big Fish
Princess Mononoke

4.5/10

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

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Web Of Intrigue Lets Through Some Gaping Conceptual Problems: Dreamcatcher

The Good: Good use of metaphor, Interesting characters, Decent acting
The Bad: Ending, Plot holes big enough to drive a tank through, Col. Curtis, Spells everything out
The Basics: When an alien invasion comes, this reviewer recommends not watching the preview and to prepare yourself for a bit of a letdown with Dreamcatcher.

For years, I have been trumpeting the instant credibility a movie by Terry Gilliam or P.T. Anderson has when it is released based on the concept that they have created two of the greatest movies of all time (Brazil and Magnolia, respectively). I have not garnered the third director in my top three movies the same respect (though Kevin Smith, down the list a little way for his perfect film Dogma, is enough to get me to go to the movies to see his flicks). I write about Lawrence Kasdan, writer some years ago of a wonderful little movie called The Empire Strikes Back. While George Lucas wrote the story for the Star Wars films, it fell to Lawrence Kasdan to co-write the script of what it generally believed to be the qualitatively best film of the franchise. Kasdan, I felt, never got enough credit for that and I realized I was somewhat guilty of that same prejudice against him, so I decided to rectify that with a viewing of Dreamcatcher.

Dreamcatcher, my attempt to look into the directoral stylings of Lawrence Kasdan, was immediately prejudiced by the writer of the film. Stephen King wrote the novel upon which Dreamcatcher is based and that is a serious detraction for me. I'm not a fan of King. I've been unimpressed by his prose and his cinematic works (Sleepwalkers, the terrible episode of The X-Files he wrote) have failed to impress me. In fact, the episode of The X-Files he wrote remains one of the low-water marks of the series and I called the last shot of the episode the moment the doll was first revealed. And I was right. I was generally surprised, then, with Dreamcatcher.

Four friends, who share an extraordinary ability that seems to be a convergence of telepathy and clairvoyance, take a trip to Maine for some relaxation. Unfortunately, while there, they find themselves at the epicenter of an alien invasion. That invasion seems to take the form of fungus, toothed worms and a creature that can mask its true appearance. Unfortunately for Jonesy, Beaver, Pete and Dr. Devlin, the special forces that are called in under Col. Abraham Curtis are planning on wiping out just about everyone in the infected area, including them.

Unfortunately for the audience, it is the addition of the military characters that corrupts and otherwise decent movie. This surprised me, because - as I said - I'm not a fan of Stephen King's works. Up to the moment the movie becomes schizophrenic between telling a tight character-driven story with the buddies vs. the overarching military story, Dreamcatcher is a real winner. Sadly, with the addition of Col. Curtis, the movie falls into a tailspin that levels out at average.

One of the fundamental problems with Hollywood films is that they believe the audience is incapable of comprehending the concept of a massive threat or group mind. So, for example, in Star Trek: First Contact (reviewed here!), the Borg are given the singular face and body of the Borg Queen to represent the struggle against what had previously been a near-invincible hive-mind force. In Dark City (reviewed here!), the conflict ultimately comes down to a clash between Mr. Book and John Murdoch. A decentralized enemy is not as cinematically dramatic. It is, however, far more frightening because there is no single target that can be eliminated to eliminate the overall threat.

Dreamcatcher falls into the "One man, One Enemy" philosophy ultimately and that leads to the greatest disappointment of the movie. The final battle, reshot to bring this concept to bear weakens the entire story. Indeed, the original ending - available on the DVD - falls more within the realism of the story presented and works for a much more intriguing ending than the special-effect laden climax we see in the standard release.

And this is fundamentally what the problem is; the story diverges abruptly from the strong character-narrative into a plot-driven formula in the middle. And this leads to all of the true weaknesses of the movie. In some ways, it would have served the film to make the story as two completely separate narratives, as opposed to combining them. That is to say, I could live with Col. Curtis doing his thing if it had nothing to do with the four friend story. In fact, what could be more dramatic and intriguing than seeing the military wipe out all of what it believes the Plague is as we watch four friends fight the last of the threat without the resources of the military? That would have made for an incredible story.

Instead, we are treated to the crazy Col. Curtis, who enters into every cliche in the book. Curtis enforces discipline with brutality. He is the entrenched officer that seems strangely less-schooled than some of the newcomers. And he reveals a plethora of information that cuts deeply into the plot.

This is an alien invasion movie. There is no real surprise there. Col. Curtis informs the viewer that he has been fighting this exact type of alien for the past twenty years. Okay, we can live with that. He also mentions that They have never invaded anywhere so cold before. Okay, we can live with that as well. We are also informed that the parasitic worms that are one of the three forms of the invaders could take over the planet if just one worm entered the water supply. And this is no small problem with the plot.

We are asked to believe that in HOTTER climates, where water is important and access to it is greater, in a TWENTY year war, NOT ONE worm has entered our water supply?! Please! I'm more likely to believe that alien worms exist in our water supply here in reality than believe - given the determined way they fight in Dreamcatcher that over twenty years in hotter climates, these fictional aliens couldn't lay one worm egg into the water supply. That's just stupid.

And, sadly, the role of top-billed Morgan Freeman of Col. Curtis is nothing of a stretch for the talented actor. Freeman brings nothing new or original to the role. This is not anything but a "type," harkening back to Apocalypse Now and Heart Of Darkness. We've seen it and here Freeman does not add anything.

Fortunately for the viewer, his entrance into the movie comes well after the viewer is effectively hooked. In no small part, the viewer is intrigued by the relationship between Devlin, Beaver, Jonesy and Pete. From the opening scenes, they seem to have some special power and that draws us in to learn about what made them who they are and that is surprisingly effective here. All three are likable and one of the scenes that sets the movie apart is a flashback wherein the four boys defy the conventions of being called a chicken by older bullies by unashamedly admitting they are willing to run away from a problem and tell everyone in town what the bullies are doing. It's a surprisingly clever reversal from the norm and in the context of the movie, it's wonderful to see it is successful.

Similarly, one of the central protagonists, Jonesy (a more subtle and clever reference to Alien than the nickname the military gives to the creatures of "Ripleys") employs a clever metaphor. His memory is literally a warehouse. So, we see him make room for new information by purging old information and it's clever and works well for making his character and his character's struggle realistic and interesting to the viewer.

Partly that is because of the quality of the acting. Damian Lewis skillfully plays Jonesy with changes in voice, facial expression and accent. There are several scenes where he is acting against himself and they work completely based on the strength of his performance.

Unfortunately, it's not enough to save the work. It's just too far gone by the problems with the story to view as anything other than entertainment. I'm not blaming Lawrence Kasdan, his directing is not at fault. He takes a shaky script and does the best with it that he can. But at the end of the day, this is no The Empire Strikes Back.

For other science fiction horror movies, please visit my reviews of:
The X-Files: I Want To Believe
Mimic
The Cabin In The Woods

5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

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

Kevin Smith Tries Some New Askew Plots . . . With Success In Jersey Girl

The Good: Funny, Sweet, Good characters, Good acting
The Bad: Predictable plot, Kevin Smith's lack of trust in his audience
The Basics: If Kevin Smith re-integrates deleted scenes into this comedy about a family on the verge of rebirth, Jersey Girl will be a work that will endure far longer.


In his first five films and single cartoon series, Kevin Smith created a universe that is immediately recognizable to fans of his work. It is in his mythical New Jersey that a drug dealer named Jay and his hetero- lifemate Silent Bob encountered obstacles ranging from mall security guards to demons bent on destroying the universe. Smith returns his fans now to a different section of his universe in Jersey Girl, though he is playing with many of his same core of actors.

Ollie Trinke is a publicist for the stars and he tends to be a workaholic. His wife, Gertrude, is very much in love with him, though when she becomes pregnant, they find some strain on their relationship, mostly to do with the amount he works. Gertrude dies in childbirth, leaving Ollie to raise her namesake Gertie. Gertie is a handful for him, leading him to a public relations mishap that gets him fired. Years later, Ollie and Gertie are still living with Ollie's father Bart in New Jersey and they are happy. Ollie, however, still pines for New York City and the life he left behind there. When he meets a charming video store clerk, Maya, who is clearly interested in him, his priorities begin to change and he needs to decide to return to the life he once knew or adapt to all of the changes that Gertie and Maya bring into his life.

First of all, I am a big fan of Smith's other outings and I like the View Askew Universe. Thus, I was looking forward to Jersey Girl from pretty much the first moment I heard about it. Unlike the many many fans who are likely to spend great time and verbiage complaining about Jersey Girl's lack of known View Askew Universe residents (notably Jay and Silent Bob), I resist such tendencies because Smith deserves his chance to explore and expand that universe (there's nothing to stop him from returning and/or integrating characters he creates now and in the future in future works).

But the fact is, I have a serious beef about Kevin Smith in regards to Jersey Girl. As many who heard about this movie knew, Ollie is played by actor Ben Affleck and Gertrude was played by actress Jennifer Lopez. The older this review becomes, the more this explicit statement will become necessary: Jersey Girl was shot while Affleck and Lopez shared an off-camera romantic relationship. In his filming diaries of Jersey Girl, Smith repeatedly remarked about how in love the two of them were and how their chemistry was amazing on film and how much life they brought to the movie.

Days before Jersey Girl was released in the theaters, Smith let it be known on his website that a good deal of the beginning of the movie - with Ollie and Gertrude in love - was being cut. He specifically cited the wedding between them hitting the cutting room floor and his given reason for the cut was that he did not want people who saw the movie to see Affleck and Lopez getting married and become confused about them being together (by the point the movie was released, their romantic relationship had been terminated).

My beef with Kevin Smith is this: he insults the intelligence of his audience and I am one of those people. Smith's lame remark was that because Affleck and Lopez came close to marrying, but did not, seeing them playing characters that got married would make the audience confused thinking that the actors had married. Please. What a ridiculous notion and what a waste of truly meaningful footage. There is a lack in Jersey Girl and it comes where the wedding should have been. Ollie and Gertrude go from courting to rather pregnant with wedding rings without the passion of something like a wedding to make explicit that there has been that deepening of their love.

Smith underestimates the power of his own work; Ollie, from the moment he appears on the screen, is quite clearly not Ben Affleck. Yes, Ben Affleck plays him, but they are not the same person. Actors play characters and Smith has cast perfectly, allowing Affleck to become Ollie the way Lopez becomes Gertrude. As a result, Smith instantly brings us into a world where two people are in love and encountering the very real stresses that come with juggling hectic work schedules. And if Kevin Smith had another reason for cutting the footage (i.e. one of the actors asking him to, because it was too painful for them to watch), fine, but he could have either been honest about it or come up with a better lie.

Smith's storytelling ability is wonderful here, as he takes the classic relationship story that he has been retelling since Clerks and puts yet another spin on it. And it works. More intelligent than just about any other romantic comedy, Jersey Girl goes into daring territory for Smith, illustrating a relationship seldom given focus in romantic comedies as the story revolves around Ollie and Gertie. The father/daughter dynamic and how it changes when another woman enters the picture is impressively explored here.

Indeed, because the plot is relatively simple, Smith is forced to flesh out his characters to an extent that he has not had to since Chasing Amy. Ironically, Jersey Girl is set up to be Gertie's story (from its title and the opening shots), yet it is Ollie's story. Ollie and his relationships with Gertie, Bart, Maya and his coworkers is what Jersey Girl is all about.

It is Ollie that moves much of the movie and he is a likable character who is instantly empathetic. Unlike Holden McNeil from Chasing Amy, who is empathetic up until he draws the worst possible conclusion from the data given to him, Ollie Trinke reacts emotively with a very real array of issues in all of his relationships. As a result, we often feel like he is a pinball moving between the different relationships in his life because he is emotively in limbo or (from the middle of the film onward) is finding his emotive center - his love for his daughter - set off balance.

Ben Affleck gives a great performance that Kevin Smith does not give justice to in assuming that people watching him will see Affleck instead of Ollie. Moreover, Affleck is given a chance to show more of his range from his action hero and whiny man types that have defined so many of his movies. This is quite possible Affleck's most accessible performance and the one that is easiest for the widest audience to relate to.

Similarly, Liv Tyler does an amazing job of defining Maya through her body language and soft voice. Tyler appears on screen shattering our perceptions of her as an elf (from her The Lord Of The Rings role) and instantly establishes herself as someone who has a sense of comic timing and real zest to her. Jennifer Lopez is decent in the few scenes we see her in and George Carlin gives a surprisingly dramatic performance as Bart.

The real surprise is Raquel Castro, who plays Gertie. Castro approaches the role with a surprising amount of maturity and depth that I have not seen in a child actor since Dakota Fanning in I Am Sam (reviewed here!). Castro, however, has a wonderful sense of a child's comic timing and she uses it in contrast to adult-like renderings of her dramatic lines that makes her character come alive.

Kevin Smith takes a chance in making a family comedy about a widower, his daughter, and the woman who enters the picture to affect their family and it's a bold, wonderful step in the growth of his storytelling ability. Hopefully, as the film hits DVD, he will have the courage to tell the story that will endure and let the tabloids fade into the past.

For other movies by Kevin Smith, please visit my reviews of:
Clerks
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back
Clerks II
Zack And Miri Make A Porno
Cop Out
Red State

8/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the movies I have reviewed.

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

The Joke Is On The Audience . . . But We Wanted It! Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back

The Good: Funny, Allusions, Character progression
The Bad: Predictable, So much was cut!
The Basics: Funny and enjoyable for movie buffs and people who enjoy Kevin Smith's movies, Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back ages well.


Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back is one of those films that people tend to take or leave and they take it if they enjoy Kevin Smith's prior works (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, and Dogma) and leave if they haven't seen or didn't enjoy Smith's previous works, this one is certainly not going to get people to watch his films. The 2-DVD set is pretty much the best argument ever for DVD short of The Criterion Collection DVD set of Brazil. The magic of the DVD is that there's a whole second film of Kevin Smith et al. introducing cut scenes from Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back.

Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back is a hard sell, so I won't try to sell it to those of you who haven't seen Kevin Smith's prior works. If you haven't seen Clerks, Chasing Amy, or Dogma, go see at least one of them and then come back to this. This film is appreciable if you know the players involved.

Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back follows the exploits of Jay and Silent Bob from New Jersey through Hollywood. The plot is simple; the pair has a comic book based upon them and when they learn there is a film being made of their characters, they discover the internet and criticism there. So, the pair heads to Hollywood under the logic that if the movie isn't made, no one can badmouth them. It's solid logic from stoners. Once you accept that, you're fine. The rest of the film is the caper of Jay and Silent Bob falling in with a group of diamond thieves, losing them, and getting to Hollywood.

Criticizing Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back is as stupid as those two yo-yos that went and sued the makers of Duce Bigalow, Male Gigolo (or was it The Animal?) because there was a faux reviewer who recommended the film. If you go to see a Rob Schneider flick, you're not expecting high brow or, if you are, you're an idiot. Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back is a stupid film making fun of stupid films being made. It's stupid, but it doesn't have the pretense of being anything more. So, why should the audience?

My theory is, we shouldn't. Accept the premise and you'll enjoy it. The film makes hilarious pokes as sequels and how lame they usually are, they mock themselves and other works expertly.

The real gem of the DVD is watching the film and then going through the bonus disk for all of the additional stuff that is packed on there. The whole commentary on the cuts scenes was easily more funny than the actual film and worth the price of the DVD alone. The different clips are great.

Here Kevin Smith makes a satire of the people he has worked with and it's amusing to see Ben Affleck and Matt Damon make fun of themselves while also playing other characters they have played in Smith's earlier films.

One of the surprises here is the quality of the acting. Ben Affleck convincingly plays Holden from Chasing Amy in a cameo early in the film as well as creating a very different character in the parody of himself. Similarly, Jason Lee's presence in the film as both Banky Edwards and Brody is strangely unconfusing; his physical appearance is not significantly altered between the two roles, but he actively portrays them as different people and he successfully sells them.

While many would applaud Will Farrell as Marshal Willenholly, I think he's simply being Farrell as a Federal Wildlife Marshal and if you've seen Farrell in a few roles, you've seen his range. He does nothing extraordinary here. However, Shannon Elizabeth is great as Jay's love interest, Justice. She is more than simply a pretty face and a body here; she's actualized enough to keep our interest for the film.

The acting talent that dominates Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back is Jason Mewes. Most of the airtime is his and here he recreates the quirky, angry, foul-mouthed drug dealer we've known from the other films.

This is not a film for the young. It's hilarious, but it uses a lot of harsh language and foul sexual references. It's not a terribly intellectual film, but it is one that those who despise pop culture will appreciate a lot: many recognizable faces from today's popular culture appear to do parodies of their more serious work.

If you want a treat and you've enjoyed Kevin Smith's other works, there's no better way to cap off the adventures of Jay and Silent Bob than this. And as a hint, stay through the end of the credits. :)

For other movies by Kevin Smith, please visit my reviews of:
Clerks
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Clerks II
Cop Out
Red State

6.5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

No Word From Taste, Clerks II Succeeds!

The Good: Character development, Acting, Humor, Dialogue
The Bad: Lack of real plot, Predictability
The Basics: While Dante prepares to move away, Randal finds himself conflicted while the pair works their last day at Mooby's.


It's a sad day when Kevin Smith can't get the clearance to call a movie "The Passion Of The Clerks" and is forced to resort to the mundane Clerks II title for his last opus involving his classic View Askew characters. Clerks II, to skip to the end, is likely to appreciated best by fans of Kevin Smith's work, especially those who like his eccentric and often obscene characters. But this is not a redux of Clerks, this is the obscenity-laden conversations of Clerks combined with the thoughtful emotionalism of Jersey Girl. And it works, wonderfully.

Following the destruction of the Quick Stop - and, apparently, RST Video - friends Dante and Randal find themselves working at Mooby's, the fictional fast-food empire established in Dogma. Dante and Randal are followed by the now-clean, but still-dealing Jay and Silent Bob. And on Dante's last day at Mooby's before moving off to Florida with his fiance, Dante and Randal harass their ultra-Christian coworker Elias, a The Lord Of The Rings fan and a number of customers. Amid the dialogue on pop culture, Dante takes breaks to spend time with his fiance, Emma, and his boss Becky.

While Randal prepares for Dante's exodus, Dante begins to wonder if he has reason to stay.

Clerks II is almost devoid of plot. Why? The main characters are slackers, so there is little they actually do. This was a crushing problem for me with Clerks, but here is makes more sense, because the characters ultimately do make the journey. So, while the film begins much like its predecessor, with the plot happening to the characters, it does ultimately make a reversal.

The reason Clerks II is work seeing is that it is a character piece. While it uses the crudest form of humor to convey its point, it does so with respect to the continuity of this reality. So, for example, after a scene where Randal, Dante and Becky list off every racial epitaph against black people, Randal decides the phrase that got him into trouble to begin with - "porch monkey" - should just refer to lazy people. Because he considers himself lazy - and he's spent 30+ years thinking the term meant "lazy," he decides to take back the phrase and spends the rest of the movie wearing "Porch monkey 4 life" written on his back. The point here is that while Kevin Smith writes humor that goes beyond mainstream good taste, he does it in a way that is consistent to the story he is telling and the characters he has created. So, in such a context, the donkey show that Randal buys for Dante as a going away present is not only understandable, but predictable. After all, in Clerks, he did go rent hermaphroditic porn to share with Dante.

So, what makes the movie work is what makes any movie work and that's character. And Clerks II has it. Dante finds his life in a state of change, with a woman who loves him and him about to move away with her. Randal finds his world - with the most meaningful relationship he's ever had - in a state of collapse. The changes that are coming are compelling the characters to finally emote. And, in Dante's case, because change is coming anyway to their lives, they begin to make the changes as opposed to letting the changes simply happen. That is character growth. And it works.

It's still a Kevin Smith movie, so there's the silliness of a big dance number, the borderline homophobia, and the dialog that would put a sailor to shame. It is a shock and a miracle that this movie did not get an NC-17 rating.

The characters are aptly played by the usual suspects in Kevin Smith's movies. Rosario Dawson, who plays Becky, is the newcomer to the mix and she is fabulous. She brings humor and gravity when necessary and she makes for a wonderful foil for Emma. Emma is played by Kevin Smith's wife Jennifer and she does a great job with her material. Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith do their usual fine work with the somewhat monolithic characters of Jay and Silent Bob.

It is, of course, Brian O'Halloran and Jeff Anderson who are given the most work and the greatest burden to carry as Dante and Randal. Here, they live up to their potentials by emoting. They play characters with very real conflicts and emotions and they pull it off masterfully. O'Halloran is conflicted and it shows through his eyes and voice. Anderson is forced to play Randal as momentarily flippant, then shockingly expressive and Anderson sells us on how difficult it is for his character to do that. Perfectly.

In fact, the only unremarkable regular is in the form of Trevor Fehrman, who seems like a poor man's Sean William Scott, without the sense of improvisational timing. Fehrman plays Elias and one wonders why - in a movie packed with cameos by other Kevin Smith movies like Ben Affleck, Jason Lee, Walt Flannigan, and Ethan Suplee - Smith did not use Jason Biggs or another alumnus from his prior films for the role.

There's a a lot to recommend this movie, like Randal's interpretation of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy, the conversation on racial slurs and the ultimate character development that occurs. There's a lot for mainstream america to shy away from here, too, like the donkey show, Kevin Smith's butt and the discussion of statutory rape. But if you have a sense of humor and want to see how far the envelope may be pushed while still maintaining a story with interesting and likable characters, Clerks II is worthwhile.

For the record, I was not much of a fan of Clerks, but this movie, I look forward to watching again and adding to my permanent collection.

For other movies by Kevin Smith, please visit my reviews of:
Clerks
Chasing Amy
Dogma
Cop Out
Red State

7.5/10

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

© 2011, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Pointless Visual Stylings Of Cameron Crowe: Vanilla Sky

The Good: Imagery, Moments of mystery, Jason Lee
The Bad: Lack of quality acting, Poorly established plot elements, Lack of empathetic characters
The Basics: When David Aames survives a car accident with a stalker-type, his life is thrown into chaos he - and the audience - cannot explain in Vanilla Sky.


I am told that Cameron Crowe is one of the cinematic genius' of our time, at least as far as the cinema is concerned. My only outing in his realm, so far, is Vanilla Sky and based on that I think his reputation is overblown. Terry Gilliam, P.T. Anderson and Kevin Smith effortlessly come to mind as better directors creating more meaningful and lasting films. If Vanilla Sky is Crowe's triumph, then his reputation is overblown; I shall suspend judgment on that until I experience at least one other film of his.

Vanilla Sky is the somewhat gnarled story of publishing executive David Aames. Aames appears to be on the top of the world, possessing what any man could want; he is a successful businessman with a blonde in his bed and money to throw around. Yet, it appears he was disfigured and as he awaits trial, he is interrogated by a psychologist. Dr. McCabe attempts to get to the root of the problem and through a series of narrated flashbacks, Aames reveals his story. Apparently, the blonde (Julie) that Aames appears emotionally involved with at the beginning is actually a stalker and Aames uses a chance meeting with Sofia to try to escape her. What follows is a confused accounting of how Sofia and Julie overlap in Aames' mind following an accident that Aames is in, disfiguring his face. The story becomes more confused by the questionable existence of Sofia, the uncertain memories of the status of Aames' face and the inexplicably erratic behavior of Aames' best friend, Brian. As Aames tumbles toward his trial, all of the elements come together and the truth is set before him.

The problem is that Vanilla Sky is presented poorly, where details are handed out as a matter of convenience. Imagine a murder mystery where it takes half the movie to reveal who was murdered, then another half hour to bother to reveal how it happened and then in the last five minutes, the murderer is simply identified. Vanilla Sky feels like that; it is a movie that does not allow the viewer to piece together all of the important imagery, instead withholding the essential elements until they are fully explained.

Without revealing the important "secret" of Vanilla Sky's ending, I will give an example. The character that ultimately gives Aames all of the answers he seeks, Edmund Ventura, is not introduced until the last half hour. He is seen once before then, but his significance is unknown at the time. Moreover, without having planted the advertisement that Aames ultimately uses to make the connections near the end, the audience is cheated of putting together the significance of Ventura's presence before his purpose is simply presented.

Vanilla Sky sets in front of the viewer various nightmare images without any sense of reason to them. The reason is simply given at the end, but the revelation comes with no sense of satisfaction because the viewer has stopped caring long before the end comes. Instead of the explanation being a catharsis where the viewer says, "Of course" or "Okay. Now it's all better," there is a sense of "eh. I suppose I could have seen it coming" or "So." The point being, any sense of being engaged with the protagonist is lost because the viewer simply experiences his delusions instead of having the ability to solve it with him. That is to say that we are trapped in Aames' limited sight instead of being able to be like Dr. McCabe and put it all together.

The lack of catharsis and caring is only suspended by a series of beautiful images. The vanilla sky in the film - an allusion to a Monet painting - radiates like nothing else, making the landscape the characters are in easily watchable. And Jason Lee does an excellent job, despite the fact that his character is poorly and erratically written. Lee handles it professionally, expressing the varied emotions he is forced to put out there.

Outside Lee, the acting is lacking in anything of value. Penelope Cruz continues to baffle me. Her celebrity is not supported by her performances in Woman On Top, Blow or this. Instead, she seems bland and generic, a form that fills the Hollywood ideal without having genuine substance or talent. Cameron Diaz, similarly, does little in Vanilla Sky besides bug out her eyes and attempt to be freaky. She lacks, however, the gravity to pull of a truly terrifying stalker-type and that is what the role of Julie seems to need. In short, she is just not intense enough to seem at all realistic.

Tom Cruise could be replaced by pretty much anyone as David Aames. I'm unsure what it was he was supposed to bring to this role. Aames is supposed to embody success and without knowing who Cruise is, the audience would miss out on that important aspect of the character. That is to say if one went into Vanilla Sky without knowing what a huge star Tom Cruise already was, the role of David Aames would be lacking any sense of the celebrity Aames is supposed to embody. Noah Taylor, who plays Ventura, has equal potential for the same connotations without the off-screen knowledge.

Whenever one has to step outside the actual work to put together all of the implications of the character, it becomes problematic. That's one of many problems with Vanilla Sky. In the end, the movie makes sense, but without the cheap exposition of the end, there is no way for the viewer to make the movie comprehensible on their own. Ultimately, Crowe fails to create an engaging movie and instead makes one that is, at best, beautiful. In this case, it is not enough.

For other films that bend reality, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Inception
Sucker Punch

5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Something To Chase After: Chasing Amy (Kevin Smith's Outrageous Triple)

The Good: Funny, Intelligent, Well-Acted, Characters, Edgy plot
The Bad: Underuse of Jay and Silent Bob, Disparities in Holden's i.q.
The Basics: A worthwhile film often misinterpreted as being about lesbian and heterosexual relationships when, in fact, it is about individuals being true to themselves and each other, Chasing Amy succeeds.


On the DVD to Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, Kevin Smith and Scott Mosier discuss their library of works in baseball terms. They believe themselves to have a career of "admirable doubles" with one strike out. I tend to disagree. While Jay And Silent Bob Strikes Back is an admirable double, which was in the truest form a gift to fans of Smith's works, two of his other works are much more than that. Dogma (reviewed here!) is easily a home run and Chasing Amy is at least a solid triple.

Chasing Amy tells the story of Holden McNeil. He's a comic book artist who is often accompanied by his good friend Banky, the inker on the Bluntman And Chronic comic they work on together. Holden is a nice enough guy who falls rather instantly in love with Alyssa upon their initial meeting. After they are out for the second time, Holden learns that Alyssa is a lesbian and after a confrontation filled with honesty and emotion, they become friends. Holden and Alyssa have a wonderful relationship until Holden declares his love for her. After that, the film changes. The two begin a relationship that defies definitions and challenges those around them. Surprisingly unaffected is Alyssa. More affected are Holden and Banky and when Alyssa's past is unearthed, Holden and Banky are each forced to confront the truth about themselves.

Where Chasing Amy succeeds is in its portrayal of people as individuals. The characters are not simply "types" written to fit into neatly defined criteria. Instead, the characters define themselves, allowing their own personalities to determine their path, as opposed to letting the labels they have to dominate their existence. Alyssa's speech when she is in bed with Holden is a perfect example, when she speaks of loving Holden on her own terms and not for any other reason.

The film is about defying roles and being an individual, being actualized as opposed to buying into a label, stereotype or group. There is no one in this film that is not aware of who they are and that is a rare thing. One of the shining examples is the supporting character Hooper X. Hooper understands he has an image of black power to sell over his softer, homosexual affect which he lives honestly by. The dichotomy is remarkable.

It's refreshing to see a film with a few characters who are each quite well defined. In essence, there are only six characters, three of whom - Alyssa, Holden and Banky - who dominate the story. And the thing is, the story is advanced by each of the characters contributing and each one does so within their means and personality. This film is remarkably devoid of anything artificial. Each of the characters feels real.

And that's the strength, the magic, of this admirable triple. In reality, there are colors, things are not black and white or shades of gray, there are colors which fill the world and surround us.

As a bonus, each of the actors gives a great performance. Ben Affleck gives an uncharacteristically good portrayal of Holden. Joey Lauren Adams portrays Alyssa with wonderful depth. But the real scene stealers are Jason Lee as Banky and Dwight Ewell as Hooper. They each take very good characters on paper and transform them into excellent characters on screen.

The weakness of Chasing Amy is largely in the mind of the viewer. I admire Holden's meta-consciousness. His ability to look at the two important people in his life and evaluate them with intelligence and insight is remarkable. It is, therefore, frustrating that the action he takes, the decision he ultimately makes, displays a remarkable lack of logic or intelligence.

Outside that, the film is a true modern classic, a wonderful 90s tale that captures essential points of human growth from young adulthood into adulthood.

For other works with Ben Affleck, be sure to check out my reviews of:
He's Just Not That Into You
Daredevil
Bounce
Forces Of Nature
Shakespeare In Love
Buffy The Vampire Slayer

8.5/10

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

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

The Incredibles: Disney/Pixar's Answer To Watchmen?

The Good: Funny, Cute, Good concept, Good DVD bonus features
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs, Underdeveloped characters
The Basics: A rather average animated flick, The Incredibles follows super heroes after their time has passed in a film too smart for children and too obvious for adults.


For those who do not read through my library of reviews here, the film I have been most excited about for quite some time was Watchmen (click here for that review!). In fact, I've loved the film and the merchandising and everything surrounding the film so much that I've annoyed my partner for a considerable percentage of our relationship. It's amazing she's still with me, in fact! But what amazed me was that while watching one of her favorite films, The Incredibles, she saw no parallels to the graphic novel or film. While I might be biased, it seems there are parallels to draw, but that the writers of The Incredibles chose to make a comedy, as opposed to a tight, tense drama.

The Incredibles was one of Disney/Pixar's films and while it is an animated movie, it actually is a bit more serious and adult than most Pixar fare. Instead of going for all of the easiest jokes, The Incredibles opts to present a darker story with the hopes that the murkier elements will go over the heads of children. As such, the movie works well and is generally engaging, but adults will find it less than extraordinary when they look at it deeper. Even so, the film is a fun one and it is one that is easy to return to for enjoyment.

Mr. Incredible, a superhero with great strength, is committed to foiling the criminals who plague the City when he is annoyed by a young man who wants to be his sidekick. In the process of trying to stop a bank robber and divest himself of the sidekick, Mr. Incredible causes a profound amount of damage to the city and the public outcry and lawsuits are resolved with making superheroes illegal and forcing the extraordinary people into obscure jobs. Mr. Incredible finds himself working as an insurance adjuster informing people kept from getting their claims filled. He is approached one day to recover an automatic, continually-learning robot that is a prototype. Excited by the opportunity to use his actual skills, Mr. Incredible secretly heads out to recover the prototype for his new mysterious benefactors.

After successfully completing his mission, Mr. Incredible returns to his family with increased wealth and a growing longing to do more action-adventure work and less insurance adjusting. But when Mr. Incredible is called into action again, the prototype returns and Mr. Incredible is trapped on an island in battle against it. At that point, Mr. Incredible's wife, Elastigirl, discovers what has been going on and she marshals the forces of her stupendously fast son, her daughter who has the ability to turn invisible and Mr. Incredible's best friend, Frozone, to go and rescue the other hero.

The Incredibles takes the concept of superheroes and works to apply some of the real-world factors to the ideal much the way Hancock did. So, while the movie has an animated film's sense of physics with people getting thrown around, not ever truly getting battered or wounded, it has a sense of the economic realities of the world (or, at least, the United States). So, for example, having Mr. Incredible tethered to a terrible job and having the law intervene to control people with superpowers - and only after lawsuits and economic damages exceed the benefit of the heroes being active - create an adult sense of the world. There is less of a child's imaginative vision in this film.

The incongruent aspect in The Incredibles comes with the storytelling then. Mr. Incredible is a superstrong individual, but he is remarkably dimwitted. Outside his ability to deliver one-liners and his desire to help people, he is remarkably lowbrow: gullible and not terribly innovative. What ties him to Elastigirl, outside the fact both have super powers is a mystery that is never adequately explored in the film. In other words, The Incredibles is erratic and it does not seem to know truly what it wants to be: a film for adults who appreciate superhero movies with more bounce than most or a bright animated film that does not quite make sense with its characters who are mysteriously being kept from living up to their full potential.

Outside that, The Incredibles is largely satisfying to anyone who does like a superhero film or a decent comedy. The movie is funny and the one-liners are quickly delivered. There is a lot of tongue-in-cheek humor that will appeal to adults and children alike. Children, for example, will enjoy the berating Mr. Incredible takes at the hands of his tiny boss, Mr. Huph, and adults will enjoy the irony of why Mr. Incredible is being reprimanded. Both are likely to enjoy the moment Mr. Incredible snaps and throws his boss through several walls.

But despite being funny and having generally decent animation, the film is remarkably predictable. In fact, the writers did not go far from other children's movies for their plot. Those who sat through Scooby-Doo, for example, will likely find this a surprisingly unimaginative move and one that offers no plot or character surprises. While The Incredibles adds little asides for getting Mr. Incredible a new costume after his first mission against the prototype and a few moments with his family, most of the movie is pretty direct in getting to the true villains of the film and it is likely to leave no viewers actually surprised.

Utilizing the voice talents of Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Wallace Shawn and Jason Lee, The Incredibles uses the voice talents of its cast quite well. Directed by Brad Bird, The Incredibles looks good and he does the best he can with the script he was given. On DVD, The Incredibles includes a commentary track and featurettes on the making of the film, including the casting. There are also animated shorts, character biographies and deleted scenes and bloopers which are entertaining.

The Incredibles is entertaining and it is hampered by its simplicity more than any technical flaws. This, however, is not enough to not recommend it, nor enough to prevent suggesting that this is a worthy addition to the collection of anyone who likes decent superhero comedies.

For other animated films by Disney or Disney/Pixar, check out my reviews of:
Toy Story 3
Sleeping Beauty
Lady And The Tramp

6/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page!

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


| | |