Unfantastic Fantasy: Why The Seventh Son Flops!

The Good: Creature design, Moments when the cast lives up
The Bad: Terrible acting, Dull story, Obvious character arcs
The Basics: The Seventh Son creates a fantasy realm where witches are hunted and good actors give lousy performances!


It seems that there is far less of a stigma these days against genre films. I’m glad for that; it helps to raise the bar of acting in genre works. Unfortunately, talent is not always used that way; since Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons and Emmy Rossum appeared in the terrible Beautiful Creatures (reviewed here!), it has been painfully clear that some studios are hedging their bets on their weaker properties by using higher caliber actors, as opposed to investing in stories, writers, and directors that can fix problems before the project is ever cast. The enthusiasm I had for seeing Julianne Moore and Jeff Bridges together again – they were wonderful together in The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) – quickly faded as The Seventh Son went on.

Sadly, the longer The Seventh Son goes on, the more blasé the film appears. Moore and Daniels are window dressing for a sub-par hero story where there are no real surprises and no genuine hook. In fact, the caliber of the two main, established, performers (and Djimon Hounsou) is truly all that saves The Seventh Son from being a complete lemon.

With the rise of the Blood Moon, the dragon form of Mother Malkin becomes more powerful and manages to break out of her confinement. In a nearby village, at the tavern, Billy Bradley tries to get Master Gregory to come to the aid of a possessed girl. After a local pushes the issue and the ancient Master puts the man in his place and accompanies Bradley to the girl. Exorcising Malkin from the girl, Malkin regains her serpent form and takes possession of Bradley to free herself (and his demise). Nearby, Tom Ward is plagued by visions while slopping the pigs and soon he is visited by Master Gregory. Gregory believes that Ward is the next protector or the realm, as he is the seventh son of the seventh son. So, buying Tom from his family to become his apprentice, Gregory takes Tom Ward away to train before the Blood Moon rises and the local witches, led by Malkin, reach their full power.

Ward inadvertently rescues a young woman, accused of being a witch, who actually is a witch. When the most dangerous assassin of Malkin’s, Urag, pops back up (he’s something like a werebear originally), Master Gregory gets worried and he sees that Ward is less willing to kill witches than he would hope. But as Malkin begins exerting her dark influence over the realm, Ward and his romantic interest see the disastrous potential of her coming to rule and they work to stop her.

The Seventh Son is a hard sell from the get go. A few years back the Underworld franchise did the whole “Supernatural Romeo And Juliet” thing pretty well with Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans (reviewed here!), so the whole “romantic” subplot in The Seventh Son falls pretty flat. The Seventh Son has a more fantastic world, filled with more varies supernatural and undead creatures than Underworld, but there is also a significantly lower sizzle factor in The Seventh Son; the character relationships are far less compelling and genuine. Perhaps the backstory between Gregory and Mother Malkin would be more potent if it were shown at the film’s outset, instead of growled to the audience as Obvious Expository Backstory midway through the movie.

On the acting front, Julianne Moore does fine as the villainous Mother Malkin, though her character’s motivations are never convincingly realized. She is something of a villain for the sake of a villain and that is not something Moore has a lot of room to play around with. Jeff Bridges growls through all of his lines in a way that makes his character from R.I.P.D. (reviewed here!) seem like a great orator. Ben Barnes as stiff at Tom Ward and he seems the least comfortable, on screen, working with digital characters and settings, which is odd because he has worked in other special-effects driven films before. His on-screen romantic interest has very little chemistry with him.

The special effects are generally good; the creature design is interesting and there is a sense in watching the film that there is a very magical world being presented. But the state of the setting it not nearly enough to sell the mundane story and characters the viewer never truly connects with. The result is a pretty typical February Flop in the form of The Seventh Son.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
Vice
American Sniper
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Imitation Game
Birdman

3.5/10

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

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Will The Giver Work Better In Context? (It’s Still Wonderful On Its Own!)

The Good: (Mostly) Wonderful directing, Good acting, Great story, Interesting character arcs
The Bad: Some elements of coincidence that do not play out well on their own
The Basics: A generally strong narrative, well-executed, The Giver might be the great start to a worthy new science fiction film franchise!


I’ve been on vacation for the last week, which explains my absence from blogging. My wife and I have been on something of a second honeymoon and today, we took the day off and took in a couple of movies. We started with The Giver, which is somewhat ironic; it has been several weeks since it was theatrically released and there seems to be a sudden rush of new releases this weekend which seems to indicate the beginning of Oscar Pandering Season. With so many new choices to take in, that her first choice was going back to take in a film she had missed seemed a bit odd to me. I can’t complain, though; the movie was pretty wonderful and it was nothing like I thought it was going to be.

My wife was big into seeing The Giver because she read it back in middle school. Apparently, she told me all about it and I was not, honestly, paying attention when she did. Based on the brief advertising campaign I caught for The Giver over the summer, I honestly thought the film was something along the vein of Pay It Forward (reviewed here!). Fortunately, my wife has forgiven me for not quite paying attention to her and, essentially, going into The Giver blind.

And the film was well-worth seeing and it is an engaging start to what should be a series (there was a full quartet of the books). Come to think of it, I cannot recall a film based-upon-a-book series where the first film in the series left me eager for the next installment(s).

In a seemingly perfect community that is apparently high in the clouds, above a ruined Earth, all of the people live predictable, planned lives. At the age of nine, like Jonas’s younger sister Lilly, children are given bicycles to teach them more responsibility and give them greater autonomy. At age eighteen, young people are given their permanent jobs and Jonas is selected to be the new Receiver, a mysterious position that seems to be exempt from most of the society’s rules. Attending his training after ominous allusions to what happened with the last chosen Receiver, Jonas learns that his position is to be the repository of all knowledge that has been withheld from the community. After telepathically linking with the current keeper of the knowledge, The Giver, Jonas realizes just how much has been withheld from the community.

Starting to see the world around him in color and feeling deeper emotions than the fleet feelings the members of the community feel, Jonas finds it impossible to continue living within the bounds of the society. Jonas feels love for his lifelong friend, Fiona, and he stops taking the medicine that everyone in the community takes in order to regulate their emotions. As the Giver and Jonas work together, transferring more and more powerful emotions to Jonas during their sessions, they hatch a plan to save the life of an under-developed baby (Gabriel) and forever alter the society. As the authorities within the society hunt down Jonas, he and the Giver come to believe that there is a boundary outside the community where Jonas could pass and restore the held memories to the community.

The Giver is the first film in a long time that I have watched and not had a powerful opinion on right afterward (one way or the other). I knew the moment the movie was done that I had enjoyed it, but it did not truly excite me. I felt the movie more than it left me in a position to analyze it. The film was set up with a number of seemingly predictable premises: a repressed society in which one member holds the ability to transform the whole system, lifelong friends who initially do not want anything to change (put into a situation where change is inherent), and an ordered society where people are kept in check with firm rules and medication (does that ever work?!). Naturally, The Giver quickly starts to deconstruct the myths of the perfect society – from the conceptual (emotions regulated by drugs cannot keep people from having opinions and feelings) to the geographical (the ground is actually ridiculously close to the edge of the cliff that is the raised community) – but it goes through the process of unfolding the resistance that is forming within Jonas well.

Jonas is an interesting protagonist and his story is well-conceived. He is anxious about the career he might be assigned (the reason for that is not explained well in the film) and he has good reason to be anxious. While all of his peers are given jobs and a purpose (he and his friend Asher easily call that Fiona will be placed in the Nurturing Center), he is held back. Until the Chief Elder gives him his job as Receiver, Jonas is a nervous young man alone. While Jonas’s mind is blown by the memories imparted to him by the Giver, his journey is more subtly illustrated as a young man going from insecure to confident.

Director Phillip Noyce gets so much right with The Giver that it is hard to find a lot to gripe about. The film begins in black and white and long before the literal interpretation of this is revealed, the metaphorical presentation of the sterile world of the community is masterfully presented. As Jonas experiences more emotions, his world is infused with color and that plays out decently. In fact, one of the few decent gripes I could come up with the film was how the costumes appeared to change after Jonas starts seeing the world in color. In other words, the planned community where everyone wears white works as a symbol of perfect order; what does not work is that when Jonas starts seeing in color, Fiona is seen actually wearing a light blue outfit and suddenly the children playing are wearing brown and orange outfits!

Beyond that, the only real flaw I could find with The Giver was with the performance of Alexander Skarsgard. I like Alexander Skarsgard and his role in The Giver is very different from his part on True Blood (though the first time his character of Father was placed right next to a baby, I involuntarily thought, “Don’t give that to him, he’ll exsanguinate it!”). Unfortunately, his performance in The Giver opens up way too much ambiguity in both the society and the people within it. Skarsgard delivers his lines with more emotion than his character is supposed to have. While Father circumvents some of the minor rules without consequence (apparently learning Gabriel’s name involved hacking into forbidden files), his lack of bewilderment when Jonas uses the word “love” makes it seem like he knows what the emotion is. In fact, throughout the film I kept waiting for him to reveal to Jonas a big secret about his own emotional range (based on Skarsgard’s performance).

The rest of the cast is wonderful and fills out the “perfect” world beautifully. Brenton Thwaites is able to evolve Jonas well from stiff but nervous to emotional and rebellious well. Jeff Bridges is virtually unrecognizable as The Giver. My wife and I watched The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) right before we left for our vacation and Bridges looks and acts nothing like The Dude in The Giver! Still, he is entirely credible as a disenchanted keeper of all knowledge in the film. Katie Holmes is wonderfully dispassionate as Jonas’s Mother and Odeya Rush is able to move from repressed to emotional well as Fiona.

The Giver does not explain everything it needs to in order to be absolutely satisfying, but the few big questions it leaves dangling are enough to want to return to this cinematic world. The Giver is smart and establishes a firm setting before beginning the process of disassembling it and, in that regard, it does all it should.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
10,000 Days
Hit By Lightning
Horns
Listen Up Philip
The Best Of Me
The Judge
Dracula Untold
The Equalizer
The Zero Theorem
The Maze Runner
This Is Where I Leave You

7/10

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

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

R.I.P. Robin Williams: The Fisher King Is Part Of An Incredible Legacy

The Good: Characters, Performances, Direction, General plot
The Bad: Editing
The Basics: One of the most powerful, diverse performances by Robin Williams came in The Fisher King, one of Terry Gilliam’s most profound explorations of human suffering.


Yesterday, the world lost an immense talent with the suicide of Robin Williams. For the past day, my wife and I have been strangely in shock; for her, this is the first celebrity death she has experienced that has genuinely shaken her. For me, I’ve been trying to find a way to commemorate the actor that does not lead me to a rant about how Terry Gilliam’s Don Quixote film can never be realized (and fuck you, American financers for not seeing the potential of that a decade ago!). One of my fondest memories of all stand-up comedy was Robin Williams doing Shakespeare: “Look! The moon, like a testicle, hangs low in the sky!” But amid his life of comedy films, what shocked me the most about the life of Robin Williams was how masterful a dramatic actor he was. In some ways, with his range and ability to portray dramatic depth and blistering emotions, the suicide of Robin Williams is unsurprising; such greatness, intelligence and emotional realization seldom comes without a price. So, to commemorate the life of Robin Williams, today I thought to take in one of his films that I had – surprisingly – not yet reviewed: The Fisher King.

Before today, I had only seen The Fisher King once, back when I was in college. I had not been prepared for Robin Williams in a serious, not-funny, role, but his portrayal of Parry caused me to entirely rethink who Williams was as an actor. Rewatching the film now, as an adult, The Fisher King is a powerful film that illustrates the talent Terry Gilliam has for direction, storytelling and getting great performances out of his actors. While Gilliam’s style is evident in almost every single shot of The Fisher King, the story he and writer Richard LaGravenese tell is much more universal than some of Gilliam’s more fantastic works. The Fisher King is intense and quirky and it is unsurprising it was nominated for many awards; perhaps the only real surprise for me was how many of those nominations did not materialize with wins. Given that The Fisher King was up against Silence Of The Lambs (reviewed here!) and that Robin Williams lost his Best Actor Oscar to Anthony Hopkins that year, there was no shame in Williams’ loss and it is all the more surprising that a genre film walked away with the uncommon Best Picture win that year. The Fisher King is a film that does not fit into any easy boxes for defining, though the dramatic elements certainly overwhelm the comedic and romantic aspects, so those expecting a Robin Williams comedy will be surprised.

Jack Lucas is a radio shock jock in New York City who is callous and hates yuppies. On the eve of his breakout from radio to television, Jack makes an offhanded comment to a caller that pushes the caller to go into a yuppie bar where he shoots several patrons and then himself. Three years later, Lucas is stuck working at a video store for his girlfriend, Anne. Drunk, despondent and only marginally functional, Jack pushes Anne away and goes out into the night where he prepares to kill himself. At the edge of the Hudson River, Jack is about to jump when two yuppie thugs come out of nowhere and begin beating him up. Before they can set him on fire, Jack is rescued by Parry, a bum who rallies other homeless people to save man getting mugged. Waking up in Parry’s home – the boiler room of an apartment building - Jack learns from the landlord that Parry’s wife was one of the victims in the shooting and his sense of guilt overwhelms him.

Parry is convinced that billionaire Langdon Carmichael’s house has the Holy Grail and he tries to enlist Jack to help him break in. But when Jack tries to pull Parry into the real world, Parry has a hallucination of the Red Knight, who makes him flee. When Parry calms down, he reveals to Jack that he is smitten with a woman he follows daily. To alleviate his guilt, Jack (with the reluctant aid of Anne) helps Parry woo the woman, Lydia. But after their successful first date, Parry’s feelings for Lydia cause him to remember the incident and he runs off into the night, where hoodlums beat him nearly to death. With Jack’s career restored, he begins to cut his ties to Anne and the comatose Parry . . . until his sense of guilt moves him to take up Parry’s quest!

The Fisher King is a character-driven story and unlike so many of Terry Gilliam’s works where Society is the villain, most of the conflict in this film comes from internal sources. Parry is an obviously tortured character from the beginning, but what makes Jeff Bridges’s Jack such an interesting character is that his humanity is evident from almost the first scene. While on his radio show, Jack is abrasive and dislikable, but the moment the news breaks about the shooting, he is shocked and culpable. The consequences of his indifference to Edwin (the shooter) breaks Jack much the way the shooting destroys Parry’s life. So, despite seeming at times like an asshole, Jack is a character who is surprisingly easy to empathize with and the viewer wants to see him grow through his interactions with Parry.

Parry is appropriately shellshocked by the night at the bar where his wife was killed. The Fisher King smartly rounds out Parry’s story with a smart backstory and a solid basis for the character to be both lost and found through his interactions with Jack. The process is not simple, nor is it easy to watch, but the film is rewarding if for no other reason than it captures both the resilience of the human spirit and a revival of the fantastic. While mythological imagery acts as a plague to Parry, the desire to take up a quest and do a good thing becomes an inspiration for Jack and plays well for the viewer.

Jeff Bridges plays both the wounded and reborn versions of Jack very well. Robin Williams gives one of the best performances of his life as Parry, credibly playing the dignified professor in flashbacks and loopy, heartbroken man for the bulk of the film. Williams plays the erratic nature of Parry well and he was obviously cast, in part, for his mastery of comic timing. But more than just being comedic relief in The Fisher King, Williams is able to capture strong emotions and Terry Gilliam captures an exceptional performance from Williams where the actor uses only one side of his face in one of Parry’s first breakdowns in the film. Williams and Amanda Plummer play off one another well-enough for Parry and Lydia to be a credible romantic couple.

What surprised me was the range actress Mercedes Ruehl brought to the supporting role of Anne. Ruehl was only familiar to me from her role of Kate Costas in the third season of Frasier (reviewed here!) and in The Fisher King she plays virtually every emotion possible as Anne. The role could be an erratic one if delivered by a less-gifted actress, but Ruehl nails every beat, easily earning her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for the role. While Williams is an actor I’ve come to expect some range from, Ruehl ruled every scene she was in in The Fisher King.

Depressing without being overbearing, The Fisher King holds up remarkably well (despite some troublingly skippy cuts in the film) and is a masterwork for Terry Gilliam, Mercedes Ruehl, and Robin Williams. Now, it stands as one of the crown jewels in the legacy of Robin Williams.

For other works with Robin Williams, please visit my reviews of:
The Big Wedding
Old Dogs
World’s Greatest Dad
Night At The Museum
Happy Feet
Man Of The Year
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
Bicentennial Man
What Dreams May Come
Jumanji
Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest
Awakenings
The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen

8/10

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

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

Anatomy Of A Box Office Failure, Why Isn’t R.I.P.D. The Next Men In Black?

The Good: Decent acting, Moments of humor, Generally good effects.
The Bad: Very predictable plot/character arcs, Incredibly familiar to anyone who watched both Dead Like Me and Men In Black
The Basics: R.I.P.D. failed to make a splash not because it was bad, but because it was way too familiar to moviegoers.


When it comes to Summer Blockbuster Season, one of the big factors working for movies is hype. The power of hype makes otherwise mundane films into huge successes long before they can end up at gas stations everywhere on DVD in a $5 (or less) bin. The fascinating thing about hype is watching which movies live up to and which films fall completely based on the audience response once that hype is stripped away. Hype before the release, as it so often happens, has almost nothing on word of mouth after the product or film is widely available. One of this summer’s big films that might have been able to use some more hype and certainly did not get much regard from word of mouth, is R.I.P.D..

R.I.P.D. is a pretty simple concept film, based on a Dark Horse comic series. It is worth noting up front that I have not read this particular comic book series, so this review is a very pure one of only the film version of R.I.P.D.. R.I.P.D. is essentially a simple concept: Men In Black (reviewed here!) meets Dead Like Me (reviewed here!). Or, it’s Spawn (reviewed here!) where the protagonist is not a monster and with a bit more in the way of humor. Either way, the concept did not quite land, at least with the summer moviegoing audience. And I, for one, am at a bit of a loss as to explain why.

The Men In Black comparison is not at all a bad one. Ryan Reynolds plays Nick, a corrupt Boston cop who is given the chance to return to Earth after his death to collect runaway souls for the Rest In Peace Department. The R.I.P.D. is basically Men In Black for the undead, as opposed to alien life forms.

Opening with a chase, the protagonist Nick reveals that he now works for the Rest In Peace Department and is part of a world he never knew existed. Flashing back days before where Nick sweetly plants an orange tree for his wife, Nick and his corrupt partner Hayes have a discussion about how they buried some gold from a bust. The two Boston cops are called to take down a notorious drug dealer and cop killer, Garcia, when Hayes turns on his partner and kills him. Sent to, essentially, purgatory, Nick is introduced to the concept of the R.I.P.D. by Proctor, who gives him the choice of taking his chances with divine judgment or joining the R.I.P.D. and repenting for his corrupt ways. Nick joins the force, partners with Roy, an old Western sheriff, and he returns to Boston to execute the will of the R.I.P.D. After witnessing his own funeral, Nick gets to work with Roy.

When their first case turns up some gold, much like Nick buried, Nick becomes suspicious. His suspicions are confirmed that there is a conspiracy between the living and the dead when Hayes turns up to recover the gold Nick buried and he turns it over to a dead man that Roy and Nick then pursue. Recalled to the R.I.P.D. offices, Eternal Affairs reveals that the gold is part of the dismantled Staff Of Jericho. If the Staff Of Jericho is assembled, the dead will rain down upon the Earth and with only a day before Nick and Roy are erased from existence, they set about trying to expose the criminals on Earth who are trying to recover the artifacts to build the Staff.

R.I.P.D. includes several concepts instantly familiar to those who were fans of Dead Like Me. Roy is from a different time and he and Nick have avatars who look exceptionally different from themselves. Nick (Ryan Reynolds) and Roy (Jeff Bridges) look like an old Chinese man and a hot blonde starlet, respectively. They have the ability to see the undead (whom Roy refers to as “deadoes”) and the undead reveal themselves to the officers and are not particularly thrilled about being recalled to the afterdeath. The relationship between Nick and Roy is, sadly, remarkably like the one between Kay and Jay.

There are some nice differences between Men In Black and Dead Like Me and R.I.P.D., like the way Indian food (it’s probably the cumin!) exposes the deadoes and transforms them into monsters. The film has quite a bit more action than Dead Like Me and the main narrative of this film is much tighter than Men In Black. Instead of really rambling around the new, larger world that Nick discovers, his death is deeply tied to the world of the undead. Bobby Hayes is the mortal villain, something which Kevin Bacon almost instantly telegraphs with his performance, and his evolution into the undead villain occurs very organically, making for an enjoyable progression. The events leading up to the undead jailbreak happen in a reasonable progression that is very entertaining.

Also R.I.P.D. is smart enough to address some of the big questions viewers might have. When the exposition about the Staff Of Jericho is presented, Roy’s question is very smartly, “why would somebody make this thing?!” McGuffins are good, but so many of them make no rational sense for why they would exist. The only real question R.I.P.D. leaves dangling is why the Department would be so stupid as to store all of the recovered gold together (whatwith reassembling the Staff being the goal of the villains!).

Jeff Bridges delivers a familiar performance as Roy. This role is remarkably similar to his performance in True Grit (reviewed here!) and Ryan Reynolds delivers nothing we have not already seen from him as Nick, but the two play off one another well for a good buddy action/comedy movie feel. Supporting parts from Robert Knepper, Mary-Louise Parker, Kevin Bacon and Stephanie Szostak are ably presented, though none stand out as exceptional for the talents involved.

The special effects do save R.I.P.D. from being considered completely mundane. The familiar narrative and performances do not look the same as in every other, similar, genre film. Still, it is easy to see why the film did not explode at the box office. R.I.P.D. is good, but hardly original and even during Summer Blockbuster Season, we want to see something that at least feels fresh.

For other works with Robert Knepper, check out my reviews of:
Heroes - Season Four
Prison Break - Season 1
Carnivale
"Dragons Teeth" - Star Trek: Voyager
“Haven” - Star Trek: The Next Generation

5/10

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

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

Desperately Average Super Hero Films Work Up To An Impressive Film With Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled

The Good: The Avengers, Some decent performances, Blu-Ray bonus features
The Bad: Exceptionally repetitive plots, Character arcs are often repetitive as well
The Basics: The six-film Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled boxed set eliminates some of the fat from the first few serialized Marvel universe movies nevertheless presents in one place the films building up to and including The Avengers.


As Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!) continues its powerhouse run at the box office, it is fun to look back at how the film came to be. The films that led up to Iron Man 3 - and much more importantly, its cinematic predecessor The Avengers - have been collected on Blu-Ray in a new boxed set called the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled. The Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled is six of the first seven Marvel Universe films that were loosely connected by background threads pertaining to the Avengers Initiative. In other words, it is the Marvel Universe without the X-Men franchise, The Fantastic Four or Spider-Man (or, for that matter, the vigilante Daredevil or the supernatural-based Marvel characters like Ghost Rider).

The boxed set of Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled does not include the film Hulk, which is somewhat ironic because it does include its sequel. The ten disc set, which is chock full of bonus features and an entire exclusive bonus disc that looks at the assembled films as a film franchise. The films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled boxed set includes:
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Avengers

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled has five movies that are only loosely tied to one another and then is paid off with a film that unites the protagonists from the prior four films. For those who have not seen them, the basic ideas behind the films are:

Iron Man has billionaire Tony Stark getting attacked and held hostage overseas. While being held hostage, he puts together a small device that keeps shrapnel from piercing his heart and he uses it to power a primitive suit of armor that facilitates his escape. Stark’s return to the United States and the industry of weapons engineering is met with mixed results. His loyal assistant, Pepper Potts, is thrilled he is alive, but his former mentor is actually dismayed in that Stark is still alive given that he has taken control over Stark Industries in Tony’s absence. Stark’s new pacifism and obsession with refining his armor to act as something of a one-man world peace force, upsets Stone and causes Tony’s former mentor to create a suit of his own to take on his protégé!

The Incredible Hulk finds Dr. Bruce Banner hiding out, having tried to keep his alter-ego, the Hulk, under control for years. He is hunted by a military-industrial complex that is determined to bring him in. In that pursuit, a villainous leader gives a seasoned officer a serum that creates another Hulk-like creature (the Abomination), who begins to lay waste, which requires the Hulk to intervene to save lives.

Iron Man 2 continues Tony Stark’s story after his revelation that he is Iron Man. With Congress looking to assimilate Stark’s technology while he resists, Stark fights two battles: one against the corporate leader of Hammer weapons and the other, in his suit, against the Russian villain Whiplash, who rises up to get revenge on Stark for stealing the technology his father developed.

In Thor the Norse God of Thunder coming to Earth as an outcast after his brother, Loki, discredits him on the astral planes. With Thor’s father in a coma, Thor ends up on Earth where he works to redeem himself and comes to care about the humans.

There is a trip to the past with Captain America: The First Avenger. During World War II, Steve Rogers is a weak young man who nevertheless wants to join the war effort to go to fight the Nazis. Instead, he is inducted into the super soldier program and given incredible strength, endurance and tactical ability. After a stint as a publicity tool for the U.S. military, Rogers as Captain America goes to free American prisoners of war and stop the evil HYDRA scientists who are threatening to unlock the massive power of a device from the astral planes, the tesseract.

The Tesseract pops back up as the object of concern in The Avengers. Loki has been tasked by a powerful alien being with recovering the Tesseract from Earth and he is ready to use it to wipe out humanity. To respond to the menace of Loki and the army he is ready to bring through a wormhole to lay waste to Earth (starting in New York City), Nick Fury – after an attack on a S.H.I.E.L.D. laboratory – works to bring together Earth’s greatest heroes to respond to the threat Loki represents.

All six films follow a similar basic format with the origin story of the super hero and the villain and the hero rising to stop them. These are all, in the end, “kill the villain” type films. Iron Man 2 has no time needed to establish Iron Man, but uses the time that these type movies to establish the heroes to remind the viewers who Iron Man and Tony Stark are and the villains are more developed in the movie. But, like the plots, the characters all have pretty obvious and repetitive journeys where, in each film, to defeat their custom villain, they must learn a Very Important Lesson about themselves.

While the films might lack a great resonance of character issues and development, the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled managed to get some pretty wonderful actors. The principle actors in this saga – Robert Downey Jr. (Tony Stark), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Edward Norton (Bruce Banner – for The Incredible Hulk), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner – for The Avengers), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Chris Evans (Captain America), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), and Clark Gregg (Agent Coulson) are wonderful and add and emotional resonance and realism to the movies that makes them feel grand and sophisticated beyond the simple plots and characters they portray. The supporting actors – Sir Anthony Hopkins, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, William Hurt, and Liv Tyler – lend a professionalism to a movie series that could seem campy or utterly unrealistic without their gravitas.

Ultimately, the movies in Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One – Avengers Assembled are entertaining popcorn movies, but seeing them together in this set begins to reiterate the idea that some of the super heroes in the Marvel Universe are hardly all that special. These stories shake up the super powers and specific plots, but are in many ways the same essential story told six ways.

For similar boxed sets, please visit my reviews of:
The Star Trek Cinematic Boxed Set
The Lord Of The Rings
The Star Wars Trilogy

5/10

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

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

One Of The More Jarring, But Enjoyable, Films Blending Humor And Violence: True Grit Delivers!

The Good: Great acting, Wonderful writing
The Bad: Very simple plot and characters
The Basics: The Coen remake of True Grit is funny, violent and all-around enjoyable as a fourteen year-old girl goes searching for frontier justice in the American West.


Right up front, it is worth noting that I have never seen the original True Grit, so this is intended as a very pure review of the 2010 version of True Grit as re-imagined and recreated by the Coen Brothers. I am, it should also be noted, not a fan of Westerns in general. The only real draw for me to True Grit was that I recently rewatched The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) and absolutely loved it. I like the weirdness of most of the Coen Brothers’ movies, so I thought I would give True Grit a chance.

And it was well worth the time and attention I gave it.

As a Coen Brothers film, True Grit is loaded with quips and witty dialogue and a wonderful sense of cinematography and good acting to boot. Within moments, I found myself enjoying True Grit more than the similarly hyped Lincoln (reviewed here!) and the blend of humor and character kept me engaged the whole film.

Mattie Ross spends almost no time mourning the death of her father when he is killed by Tom Chaney. Instead, she decides that when the law opts not to pursue Chaney, who fled the small city, she will hire a bounty hunter to track down Chaney and bring him to justice. She wants to employ the most ruthless U.S. Marshall she can find and that is Rooster Cogburn. Mattie watches Cogburn take the stand in another case where he killed two of the three suspects and she tries to hire him then. The quick-tongued Mattie wakes up the Texas Ranger, LaBoeuf, at the foot of her bed and learns that he has been hunting Chaney (under a number of aliases) across the South and West. LaBoeuf brings his knowledge of Chaney and Cogburn brings his ruthless determination (once Maddie prods him into it and gets him sober enough) to the hunt.

When the two men head out without her, Mattie pursues, which annoys LaBoeuf. Mattie works to keep Cogburn focused on finding Chaney in the wilds, frequently threatening everyone with legal actions. When they part ways with LaBoeuf, they hunt for Chaney through the wilds, following vague leads (like recovering the gold piece that Mattie’s father was carrying) and dead bodies (and strange living people) in their pursuit of justice. The pair and LaBoeuf hunt for Ned Pepper to find Chaney and bring their judgment upon him.

True Grit is all fun and amusement until it takes the predictably Coen-esque turn for the abruptly violent and shocking. True Grit is unfortunately gruesome when it is not being chuckle-out-loud funny. But the humor is quickly mixed with scenes where characters have bitten through their tongues and have other body parts chopped off. The most cerebral form of humor in the film comes from Mattie. Mattie is the smartest person in the film – explaining Latin legal terms to Rooster and outmaneuvering Stonehill to get the money to bankroll her quest for vengeance – and her naïveté plays off Cogburn’s drunken worldliness with great comedic effect. Indeed, her trying to get Cogburn to live up to his promise to bury one of the scoundrels is met with his observation that the man shouldn’t have died in such a cold climate where the ground was frozen over works because of Mattie’s wide-eyed optimism before and after.

When the Marshall and Ranger beg off, the mission changes as Mattie is captured by Pepper and Chaney. Even so, True Grit keeps a fast enough pace to be consistently engaging and funnier more than it is horrifying. The characters, who could come across as simply goofy are presented as quirky instead and that works for a story that is rooted in a dark quest for revenge.

Jeff Bridges deserves a lot of kudos for his role as Rooster Cogburn. He is hilarious as he slurs through the role, creating a character who is almost as funny as The Dude in the exact opposite way as his iconic Coen Brothers character. Jeff Bridges plays Cogburn as a drunkard and with a lack of focus that fades to a strong moral core that keeps him determined and willing to sacrifice everything for Mattie. Matt Damon is like no other role he has played as LaBoeuf and he manages to get through the entire film without his trademark smirk, illustrating that he can act.

True Grit is held together by Hailee Steinfeld. Steinfeld is the fourteen year-old Mattie and she is articulate enough to make the character completely viable. She has a presence on film on that is uncommon in young people. In fact, not since Dakota Fanning in i am sam (reviewed here!) has a girl so driven a film and stolen the spotlight. It is virtually impossible not to watch True Grit and predict that she will have (barring a Lohan-like collapse) a long and fruitful career.

True Grit becomes a little muddied in that Cogburn becomes obsessed with finding Ned, as opposed to keeping on Mattie’s focused quest for Chaney alone, but it might be the best film yet that blends humor and violence into an overall satisfying film.

For other films with Barry Pepper, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Seven Pounds
25th Hour
Battlefield Earth

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the reviews I have written!

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

A Quirky Blend Of Bowling And Hostage Negotiations, The Big Lebowski Is Rightfully A Cult Classic!

The Good: Funny, Decent acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Too often weird for the sake of weird (lack of purpose)
The Basics: Delightfully odd, The Big Lebowski is the film Thomas Pynchon would have made and has a visual style that helps define the greatness of the Coen Brothers.


I was clearly too young when I first watched The Big Lebowski. I know I saw it back after college, but I had no particular affinity (or even memory) of it. So, when the opportunity came for me to watch The Big Lebowski today, I leapt upon it. I think it might be ironic that the day I panned one of Thomas Pynchon’s latest novels, Against The Day (reviewed here!), the highest compliment I can give The Big Lebowski is that this film has a Pynchonesque quality to it. Thomas Pynchon is known for being quirky and meandering and in writing and directing The Big Lebowski, Joel and Ethan Coen create something distinctive that is the most Pynchonesque film I have yet seen.

Like a comedic, less violent version of Payback (reviewed here!), the Coen Brothers blend the story of a man looking for far, far less than others want or expect out of him (like Porter in Payback going through his ordeals for vastly less than most of the gangsters expect, the Dude is really just out to get his rug replaced in The Big Lebowski) with a ransom which may or may not be real. Including dream sequences, quirky characters, and surprisingly good characters, the only real problem with The Big Lebowski might well be that there are so many different collectible versions of the DVD/Blu-Ray and it is sometimes weird for the sake of being weird as opposed to being a cohesive story. It is, honestly, not much of a problem at all.

The Dude (Lebowski) returns home from buying half and half to get his face shoved in his toilet by thugs who demand to know where the money is. One of the thugs urinates on his rug and when they realize that he is not the millionaire that they are trying to shake down, they leave. Inspired by his bowling buddies, the Dude searches for the real Lebowski to get compensation for his rug getting urinated upon. After taking a rug from Lebowski’s house and going bowling (where his rule-bound friend, Walter, draws a gun on an opposing player), the Dude is summoned back to the Lebowski mansion.

Mr. Lebowski’s wife, Bunny, has been kidnapped and Lebowski wants the Dude to act as a courier for the ransom. When talking with Walter, the Dude posits that the rich girl has not even been kidnapped, which Walter decides must be true. Walter throws a false bag – without the ransom money – to the kidnappers, queering the deal. The Dude quickly finds himself threatened by Lebowski, Lebowski’s daughter (who is older than his new wife), a pornographer who Bunny owes money to and, in a completely different context, a pedophilic bowler named Jesus. In hunting down the money, which has been stolen, the Dude is tailed, menaces a fifteen year old and does battle with corrupt cops.

Like a Pynchon novel, The Big Lebowski is populated by ridiculous characters who represent archetypes and agendas that allow the ridiculous plot and plot turns to seem entirely plausible. The Dude is a former hippie, conscientious objector, whose big accomplishment is being an occasional bowler. He essentially becomes a detective due to the apparently wealthy Lebowski and works for a cut off three different people with agendas for the return of Bunny Lebowski. Walter is a psychopath who claims to observe the Sabbath and plays up his status as a veteran.

Thugs and nihilists go up against the Dude and Walter in a caper that includes ransom demands when there is no hostage, a person who cuts off a toe, and a fight that involves one man biting off another man’s ear. Impressively directed by Joel (and, in an uncredited capacity, Ethan) Coen, The Big Lebowski includes dream sequences complete with big dance numbers that have a trippy feeling that is fun to watch. In fact, outside David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!), it is hard to recall a film that so purely captures the blend of drug trips, reality, and dreams as The Big Lebowski. Unlike something like Mulholland Drive, though, The Big Lebowski actually tells a story and in that way, it makes for a eminently satisfying film.

In other words, outside the simple visual styling and the quirky characters, The Big Lebowski is enjoyable because things happen and there is a story to be pieced together. Like the best of Pynchon’s novels, there is substance and themes in The Big Lebowski presented in a way that has a sense of poetry. It is easy to see how the film became a cult classic.

Julianne Moore has a wonderful supporting performance as Maude Lebowski, where she is unlike any other performance she has had. Similarly, the exceptionally brief appearance by John Turturro as Jesus (who the previews might make one suspect has a substantial role in the film) performs with a wonderful sense of physical comedy, a looseness that makes him ridiculous in a way that he plays nowhere else. Steve Buscemi (Donny, the other bowling partner of the Dude), David Huddleston (Lebowski), and Philip Seymour Hoffman all have decent supporting roles that help play off the ridiculousness of Jeff Bridges as the Dude.

John Goodman is predictably wonderful as Walter. The real surprise, though, is Jeff Bridges as the Dude. Bridges, who frequently takes serious roles where he is able to play dignified, is incredible as the slacker, the Dude. Slouching through most of the movie, he presents the character as smart, but also incredibly able to reason at key moments and makes the whole role seem plausible. Bridges has a great physical presence and his expressions of surprise and disappointment are well-played.

The Big Lebowski is funny, clever, and well-presented and well worth watching for anyone who has an appetite for quirky and surprisingly smart.

For other works with Sam Elliott, check out my reviews of:
Marmaduke
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Ghost Rider
Thank You For Smoking
Hulk

9/10

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

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

Simon Pegg's Remarkably Average How To Lose Friends And Alienate People.

The Good: Funny, Decent performances
The Bad: Light on character, Incredibly predictable
The Basics: Fun and funny, but not in any memorable or enduring ways, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is worth one viewing, if nothing else.


Reviewing movies has become a genuine thrill for me lately. It is fun to get into screenings and tonight was the first time the "and guest" part of my screening pass was actually utilized. It's also the first night I was not seated next to a pair of giggling sophomores. It was a treat for me to be able to take my friend to see How To Lose Friends And Alienate People; she's a big fan of Simon Pegg. I thought I was a Simon Pegg virgin, but then I realized he was in Mission: Impossible III (reviewed here!), though his performance made absolutely no impression on me.

When the film was over, my friend informed me that I might like some of Pegg's works that he has written as well as performed in, as they utilize his talents better than How To Lose Friends And Alienate People. I have to take her word for it, though I think I would like to see Pegg in other movies, as this one was a remarkably average comedy. It wasn't great, it wasn't bad; I laughed. It killed an evening. And so it goes. In virtually every way, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is an average film.

Sidney Young is a journalist who has never been on the a-list. In Britain, he is more or less despised while writing and editing a small magazine (The Post-Modern Review). After attempting to sneak into the BAFTAs with his pet pig (you know, the pig from Babe 3), he manages to crash an afterparty where he is chatting up Thandie Newton when his pig gets out and causes mayhem. This, however, brings him to the attention of U.S. publisher Clayton Harding, who was once a satirist and now owns some of the most successful magazines in the U.S. Clayton hires Sidney and the young Brit comes to the Big Apple to make his start.

Under the editors Lawrence Maddox and Alison Olsen, Sidney becomes familiar with the local up and coming talent, whom he is discouraged from speaking to while working on the "I Spy" desk. After meeting his idol, an aging actress named Rachel Petkoff - who is rejected for a feature in the magazine by Maddox - Sidney becomes infatuated with up-and-coming actress Sophie Maes. Sophie and the arrogant new director Vincent Lepak are both clients of Eleanor Johnson, so Sidney works to get on her good side. In the process, he and Alison discover they have more in common than they initially thought, Sidney inadvertently kills Sophie's dog and Sidney gets virtually everyone around him to despise him.

Actually, the title of the film, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is something of a misnomer: Sidney starts the film as a man with no real friends and he simply continues wandering through his professional life trying to be edgy. Sidney states throughout that he does not want to be one of the a-list, he does not want to be one of the people behind the velvet rope and so when he encounters Vincent, his instinct is to try to take the young new director down a few pegs because Vincent has not accomplished anything, yet is treated like he owns the world. That instinct makes for an interesting character, but Sidney is surrounded by terribly serious americans who all take their jobs seriously and gawk over the stars.

The comedy in How To Lose Friends And Alienate People tends to come in the form, largely, of physical comedy. Things like Sophie wading through a pool to get through a crowd leave Sidney gaping. There are tried and true physical comedy moments, like Sidney dancing and his weird gyrations virtually clearing the dance floor off, Sidney and his landlady checking out the transsexual Sidney unwittingly brought home his first night in New York City with the classic head tilt, and quite a bit of sloppy eating gags. How To Lose Friends And Alienate People does not claim to be highbrow, but it strives for fun. The thing is, as far as the physical comedy goes, much of this movie contains Simon Pegg impersonating Rowan Atkinson. The body flailings, the mouth screw ups; these are hardly unique to Atkinson. However, the way Atkinson performs seems to be emulated by Pegg in many of the scenes that he is forced to carry with limited dialogue.

Largely, the movie succeeds on the level of fun, because there is not much to it that is substantial or surprising or new. From the moment Alison Olsen - who Sidney meets the night before he takes his job at the magazine at a bar - turns up at the magazine, the film becomes a fairly predictable sequence of events whereby Sidney strives to have sex with Sophie before Maddox does, while all the while developing a much more substantive friendship with Alison. As a result, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is pretty much the intersection between the obvious fish-out-of-water comedy and the most predictable romantic comedy.

There are, however, two great character moments in the movie that make it worth recommending. The first is that Sidney is confronted with Rachel Petkoff, a star he truly is struck by. First, this provides Sidney with a moment that allows writers Toby Young (who wrote the book this movie was based upon, which I have not read) and Peter Straughan (the screen writer) to make a comment on how women are treated in Hollywood (or New York City). Age is not revered in the U.S. and Sidney's gushing over Petkoff makes for an enjoyable moment that says much about his character and about U.S. celebrity society. This moment also offers the potential for a real twist in the movie, which would have been for Sidney to pursue something with Petkoff. It is a shame the film chooses that moment to introduce Sophie in a big wet way that makes Sidney absolutely gush like everyone else at the party. It is a shame that potential was so quickly squelched.

The other character element for Sidney that makes How To Lose Friends And Alienate People worth watching is that he is estranged from his father. This reveals several secrets of his past that I shall not ruin, but do make him a much more interesting character. In fact, the only problem with these character revelations that come out from the estrangement of Sidney and his father is that once they are out, Sidney begins to act a different way. I resist the idea that once people are revealed to be smart, they suddenly act that way if they have been hiding it so effectively so long.

Outside Sidney, though, none of the characters are particularly likable. Clayton only is humanized in a few lucid scenes where he makes decisions based upon nostalgia, like hiring Sidney and sending Sidney to write a scathing article on Vincent. Maddox is cheating on his wife and Alison falls into the young stereotype of mid-twentysomething who is still solving her problems with alcohol. Similarly, Sophie is written like a bad cliche of the sudden starlet and when her dog Cuba disappears from the movie, it is not a moment too soon.

How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is undeniably well-cast. Jeff Bridges and Gillian Anderson return to the big screen after their summer blockbusters for roles that are not their greatest, but utilize them well enough to make the viewer psyched to see them when they show up on screen. This was the first movie I had seen Megan Fox in, but she was convincing as the absent-minded and vacuous sudden starlet. Rather problematically, her character appears wearing fur near the end of the film when she was characterized as a vegetarian who didn't wear anything made of animal, but this cannot be held against Fox.

Moments before How To Lose Friends And Alienate People began, my friend who accompanied me informed me that Kirsten Dunst was in the film and my heart sank some. For those who do not follow my reviews, I spent some time last year trying to figure out why Kirsten Dunst was considered a decent actress and I stopped when I finally saw Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (reviewed here!) and Dunst was decent in it. In this, it is tough to evaluate her work; her character is such a bland archetype that there is not much to work with. That said, she does not infuse any real zest into the character and is largely relegated to playing straightwoman to Pegg's absurd antics.

As for Simon Pegg, he is decent as Sidney, but he does not light the world on fire. He is a good physical comedian, though his required flailings about in How To Lose Friends And Alienate People do seem awfully familiar as a fan of Rowan Atkinson. Still, the verbal comedy he is given is funny and he pulls off the role of Sidney well enough that I am curious to see him in other things.

Who will enjoy How To Lose Friends And Alienate People? Anyone looking for lighter fare. This is a screwball comedy for adults and it fits the bill for that. My "recommend" is for viewing, not for buying on DVD. It's enjoyable, but it hardly seems like it would be an essential piece for the library of fans of any of the performers involved.

For other works with Megan Fox, check out my reviews of:
Jonah Hex
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Transformers

5/10

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

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

I'm No More A Fan of Horse Racing Movies Than I Am Of Horse Racing: I Get Bored By Seabiscuit

The Good: The acting
The Bad: Plot is dull and predictable, Nothing Earth-shattering on the character front
The Basics: It's a horse racing movie. No matter what the character struggles, Seabiscuit all comes down to the ability of a horse. Sigh.


I suppose that every person enjoys a different type of movie and in considering that, I think I am almost ready to conclude that I'm not a huge fan of sports movies. Seabiscuit came highly recommended and I finished the movie with a rather disappointed feeling. I tend to enjoy movies about underdogs and people of courage who overcome their limitations to do whatever they feel they need to do. I respect those types of characters. In Seabiscuit, I encountered two things that basically failed to engage me: 1. Horse racing is no more about the athleticism and ability of man than cockfighting is, and 2. Because much of the action hinges on things that happened in reality, for a story like this to work, the characters have to be approached in a way that is, well, interesting.

Seabiscuit finds the day of the horse firmly in decline with the rise of the automobile. Enter millionaire Charles Howard, who is as down on his luck as someone with money can be during the Depression. He acquires an awkward horse named Seabiscuit and hires Tom Smith to train him. Smith begins to train the horse with Red Pollard as the jockey. They yell at each other, the horse wins some races, people get hurt, the horse gets hurt, then they try again.

This movie is about many things, mostly comebacks. It is about taking a chance on something that does not quite fit the norm. As Howard notes at one point, "The horse is too small, the jockey is too big, the trainer too old, and I'm too dumb to know the difference." The horse fights impossible odds to start winning races and that's impressive in the context of horse racing. At the end of the day, it's a horse that runs fast. It runs fast because there's a person on it whipping it. That's horse racing.

And yes, Seabiscuit wants to be something more than "just a horse racing movie." But it's a horse racing movie. The greatest tension the movie achieves is not in the witty dialogue, it is not in the character struggle to admit limitations and overcome them, it is when the horse is running. And again, it's not terribly exciting if you are not into horse racing. I tend not to watch horse racing; the races always seem too short for me (once upon a time, I was a distance runner). They seem somewhat extravagant and pointless to me. Whoo, horse runs fast in circle! Wow.

In Seabiscuit, the attempt to mitigate the fact that all of the action is building to a horse race is encapsulated in the character of Tick Tock McGlaughlin. McGlaughlin is the announcer at the track and he is responsible for hyping Seabiscuit beforehand and trumpeting the veracity of the feat after the race. And the character's sole point (outside realism) seems to be to get the audience excited about the races by reminding us they are coming up in a way that, apparently, the rest of the training and conversing in the movie do not.

There is not a ton of character development in this movie and at over two hours, I have a problem with that. The character arcs take all the predictable turns one would expect in an underdog story where the viewer is meant to root for those whose luck has been poor of late. Unfortunately, because all of the characters fall along the predicted arcs, it is hard to become invested in any of them. They are types, not individuals here.

That is not to say that the cast does not do the best they can with what they have. I might not like Tick Tock McGlaughlin, but William H. Macy does a great job portraying him. Macy expertly fast-talks and riles up the crowds for the audio presentations of the races and in that, he adds a sense of realism. I can honestly say I've never seen Macy in a role like this before. Similarly, Jeff Bridges does well as Charles Howard, easily conveying the sense of a man with power and influence.

Much of the movie, however, hinges on Chris Cooper as Tom Smith and Toby Maguire as Red Pollard. Cooper gives a good performance with the material he is presented. His character is heavily vested in the training aspect, so Cooper is the one who runs with the jargon and he does so convincingly.

And Toby Maguire does a fine job as Red. Red is down on his luck in some ways, hiding his own weaknesses. Maguire's performance is better upon a second viewing when we know what his true condition is; Maguire's acting gives us all the clues, if only we knew to look for them. When he is presented as a well-rounded character, Maguire does a good job on selling us on it. However, with the male libidos and the competitive nature of the story, Maguire also spends time in the movie giving pretty standard jibes at other characters in a way that makes the character seem like a type. Still, Toby Maguire sells us on even these limitations.

Finally, Seabiscuit is well-shot. Director Gary Ross (who also wrote the screenplay) has a good eye for movement and he takes some time establishing shots with the scenery quite well. The movie looks good.

Ultimately, it's not enough, though. In the end, this is a horse racing movie and while the events of the time might have made this impressive, in larger-than-life, big-screen, bright color moving fast movie, it's just not terribly incredible. It did not inspire me to look up footage of the actual horse races, though with the poorly developed characters, it makes me wish I had done that instead.

For other sports movies, check out my reviews of:
Rocky
Moneyball
Chariots Of Fire

5/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are organized from best to worst!

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

DVD Extras Nudge An Otherwise Floundering Documentary Up: Lost In La Mancha

The Good: Interesting story, Decent amount of DVD extras, Good idea
The Bad: Even the DVD extras become repetitive, Documentary style is executed in a mediocre fashion
The Basics: A thin documentary, Lost In La Mancha stretches the collapse of a film into 90 minutes and is bailed out on DVD by the bonus disc.


For those unfamiliar with my many, many reviews, I am an avid movie buff, a fan of documentaries and a fan of the works of Terry Gilliam. Gilliam's masterpiece Brazil (reviewed here!) remains the reigning champion of American filmmaking in my pantheon and so when I learned of the collapse of his film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote, I was instantly intrigued. Captured on film in the documentary, Lost In La Mancha, directors Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe chart the unmaking of a European film and possibly Gilliam's most public cinematic failure to date.

Clocking in barely over an hour and a half, Lost In La Mancha follows the preproduction for the Terry Gilliam film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and it captures the six days of principle photography that occurred wherein the sets and props were destroyed by natural disasters and the film's star was plagued by a prostate infection that made him unable to perform. As the disasters converge, financiers for the film become agitated and bolt and Terry Gilliam and his crew are left in Spain with a few reels of developed film and nothing else.

The problem with Lost In La Mancha is that the back to the DVD pretty much defines exactly what the film is. It references the F-16s flying overhead to ruin the sound and the hail storm. Were it not for the problems faced by lead actor Jean Rochefort, the DVD box would give away all the documentary. The fundamental problem with Lost In La Mancha is that seeing the disasters occur adds little or nothing to the experience of learning about how the film The Man Who Killed Don Quixote failed to become.

It may seem spoiled to say that the documentary boils down to a two line water cooler discussion: "Hey Terry, I heard you were making The Man Who Killed Don Quixote and not it's not going to be made; what happened?" "Well, Keith, the sound was ruined by F-16s flying overhead while we were filming, the sets were ruined by a freak hailstorm which completely altered the landscape where we had already shot and our lead actor got a prostate infection that made all our European investors skittish and abandon the project." (Optional response: "Wow, that sucks.") This is the whole movie broken down into two lines. Seeing it adds little to the understanding of what plagued the production, especially after the third time the F-16s start flying about while Gilliam is shooting.

Honestly, I've discovered I prefer documentaries that are not simply a literal capturing of reality as it occurs. In a similar vein, I found I did not so much enjoy Shut Up And Sing (reviewed here!). I tend to enjoy documentaries that inform and convince the viewer of an argument, like Fahrenheit 9/11 (reviewed here!) or An Inconvenient Truth (reviewed here!). A documentary like Lost In La Mancha has to truly sparkle and shine to grab me and make me find value in it. The problem here is the story is not terribly compelling. A film, hamstrung by the beginning by a low budget is thrown into chaos when costly disasters and unforeseen events cripple it. Bummer, but it's not the end of the world. The novelty of watching a film disintegrate is just not there for me, especially when the root causes are so easy to describe and encapsulate as they are in this case.

What saves this disc from the trash heap (I'm so glad now I did not see it in the theaters, because I likely would have panned it and not given it a chance on DVD), is the second disc. After a mediocre documentary (I loathe the way it begins, for example, without a strong sense of purpose in a random scene), it took a lot of faith in Gilliam and Fulton and Pepe to get me to pop the second disc into the player. On the second disc there are additional interviews with Terry Gilliam, Johnny Depp (the biggest name star of the botched film), and the directors. The producers, script writers and prop departments find their voices as well and the treasure trove of additional interviews includes a great deal of material not in the prime documentary.

As well, the bonus disc includes deleted scenes - including two alternate openings to the documentary that are better than the actual opening to it, "soundbites" which repeat much of what is said elsewhere on the discs, and a trailer. The gems of disc are the two interviews with Terry Gilliam that are about an hour each in length. The first interview is with Salman Rushdie and he and Gilliam have an intriguing and insightful conversation on cinema in general and Gilliam's works in particular. The dialogue is frank and honest and refreshing. The other interview is an IFC Focus on Gilliam where the interviewer does a poor job of making the conversation interesting, but Gilliam bears with him through it.

For some inexplicable reason, this film is rated "R," perhaps for the profanities Gilliam screams as he watches the hailstorm and flood blow and wash away his sets and props, but it's disturbing that the MPAA feels it warrants such a harsh rating. For those worried about how appropriate it is for those under 18, I suggest it's more likely to bore those under 18 rather than shake up their sensibilities in any inappropriate way. After all, how many Gilliam (or documentary) fans are there truly who are under 18?!

And in the end, this is a rather esoteric niche that I'm even recommending this disc to. If you're a fan of Terry Gilliam's work, this is a DVD worth seeing (if you can rent it or watch it for free), but mostly just for the bonus features. Having watched the documentary twice now, I can honestly say it does not hold up over multiple viewings as anything special. Fans of cinema in general are likely to get all they need to know from the DVD box.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Roger & Me
Why We Fight
This Film Is Not Yet Rated

5/10

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

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

| | |