Generic Justice League: How Warner Bros. Limped Across The Finish Line.

The Good: Moments of characterization, The acting is fine, Some of the humor works well
The Bad: Incredibly basic plot, Utterly generic villain, Painfully derivative plot development, Troublesome continuity, Familiar final battle sequence
The Basics: Justice League arrives and it is hard not to feel like it is a missed opportunity on almost every front.


It's tough to sit down to a film that has been built to in an inefficient way when there is such a good example of building a franchise the right way. The DC Comics Cinematic Universe, sadly, lives in the shadow of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. For all of the problems with the Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 1 (reviewed here!), the franchise was built well over several years. The Marvel Cinematic Universe took a bunch of mediocre super hero films that were focused on (generally) a single character, loosely tied them together and when they were put together in The Avengers (reviewed here!), that movie succeeded largely because the scale was appropriate to the threat. As well, the essential characterization was already done in the foundation films, so The Avengers was able to illustrate just what those heroes could do, as opposed to giving out basic information about who was fighting.

Justice League has no such grace.

Justice League is the DC Comics Cinematic Universe answer to The Avengers and the immediate tragedy of it is that it comes so late to an already-saturated market (doing anything fresh in superhero films is tough these days!), the foundation work was not actually finished, and there were huge issues with the foundation films that go unanswered going into Justice League. Three major characters in Justice League were virtually unexplored going into the film: Aquaman, The Flash, and Cyborg. Cyborg, especially, suffers in Justice League because his backstory is done more or less on the fly and he ends up seeming like a generic super hero who is intended to fill the same functional niche in Justice League as Iron Man did in The Avengers. Indeed, it is hard for comic book and super hero film fans to not wince when Cyborg appears and to show off his evolving abilities, he levitates much like Iron Man.

The failures in the foundation work make Justice League a tougher sell than it ought to be. Wonder Woman (reviewed here!) left the lingering question: If the God Of War was defeated, how the hell do all subsequent wars on Earth actually occur? (Justice League might have been a conceptual smash if the history of the DC Cinematic Universe included a retcon that showed no wars in that universe followed World War I and Earth was left defenseless against the villains in the new chapter.) If the final shot of Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn Of Justice (reviewed here!) insinuated that Superman was still alive or there was still some form of power in his Kryptonian corpse, how did he let the Motherbox problem escalate to this point? [That question, at least, is satisfactorily answered in Justice League.] And if the parademon threat is growing so fast, would this not be the very definition of an "all hands on deck" situation? Where, then, is the Suicide Squad to help out with basic combat/demolition? It seems like they would have been ideal for the Russian front, at the nuclear reactor. And if Bruce Wayne had the vision of Superman being used by the same entities using the parademons, why would someone so smart attempt to resurrect the dead Kryptonian?

So, Justice League begins from a disadvantageous position where the universe of the DC Cinematic Universe is not fleshed out well-enough on screen (comic book fans have a distinct advantage going into the film, obviously) to absolutely invest in the film's threat. The best analogy I have is that it took until the commentary track for Return Of The Jedi (reviewed here!) when it was explicitly stated that the point of much of the dialogue in the final throne room scene was to sell the audience on the idea that Luke Skywalker could actually go over to the Dark Side and join the Emperor. I must have seen Return Of The Jedi thirty-five (or more) times before listening to that commentary track and the moment never once landed where that occurred to me. It was so ineffectively done that the suspension of disbelief did not happen. With Justice League, there is a similar sense of lack of suspension of disbelief to the threat: of course the one character not put into the promotions will show up in the film, of course the team will manage to come together, and there is never a doubt that the invading threat will be repelled. Warner Bros. is building a franchise: of course that reality would not be undone and remade in the first big team-up film.

But, there's Justice League arrived at without all the essential prep work and perhaps the real problem with arriving so late to the marketplace is that the parallels in narrative structure and character beg comparisons to The Avengers. No doubt, someone will soon do a comparative analysis that lines the two films up, side by side, and it would be unsurprising if the rampage in Justice League came about right around the same time in the film as the Hulk smashing through the helecarrier in The Avengers.

So, what is Justice League?

Following the death of Superman, the world has more or less fallen in to chaos. While Wonder Woman deals with street level crimes - terrorists attempting to blow up a bank - Batman is active again in Gotham City, combating a random parademon that arrived in the city. Encountering the alien invader, and having vague information about the Motherboxes on Earth, Bruce Wayne reasons that it is Superman's absence that is drawing the interstellar threats and that it is time to assemble his team. While Arthur Curry rejects Wayne's offer, a Motherbox on Themyscira becomes active. Steppenwolf arrives through a Boom Tube on Themyscira and attempts to wipe out Hippolyta and the Amazons, but the force of numbers causes Steppenwolf to beat a hasty retreat . . . with a Motherbox. Hippolyta lights a warning fire, which informs Diana that the invasion has begun and Diana meets with Bruce Wayne to tell him exactly what they are up against.

While Bruce Wayne easily recruits Barry Allen to his team, Victor Stone (a cyborg altered through a Motherbox and other technology in a scientific accident) reaches out to Diana. When Steppenwolf attacks Atlantis for the Motherbox hidden there, Arthur Curry joins Batman's team. Bruce Wayne believes that the only way to save Earth from Steppenwolf and protect the final Motherbox is to resurrect Superman using the Motherbox Victor Stone brought him. While Diana advises him against it, Wayne and Cyborg agree on the course of action and Barry Allen goes along with them. But when Superman is resurrected, he comes back wrong and triggers Cyborg's technology against Stone's directives. In the ensuing conflict, Steppenwolf is able to get control of the final Motherbox and he takes it to Russia where he begins rewriting reality in order to attempt to make Earth into a primordial wasteland that he can rule.

Within the narrative, Justice League suffers from being That Kind Of Movie. This is a big-budget super hero film and to make a threat worth assembling the biggest DC Universe characters, it requires something incredible. But the name is a misnomer. Justice League is not about justice; there is no higher principle in play in the film. Justice League is entirely preoccupied with survival as all of reality is threatened by Steppenwolf and the power of the Motherboxes. Like its predecessors, Justice League suffers mightily from leaving huge gaps in the narrative for a reasonable sense of continuity: the moment Steppenwolf stole the Motherbox from Themyscira, why didn't Hippolyta reach out to the Atlanteans? There is an allusion that a war occurred between the Amazons and the Atlanteans at least one generation prior to Aquaman's ascendance, but to stop Steppenwolf from getting his hands on the Motherbox in Atlantis, is seems like someone in the know like Hippolyta would have volunteered her forces instead of simply obliquely alerting Diana . . .

The lack of an underlying principle or theme in Justice League becomes painfully clear during the Motherboxes backstory. Justice League manages not to simply copy from The Lord Of The Rings (reviewed here!) with how the backstory is related, but the parallels in the stories are pretty obvious. Sauron, having created the One Ring, plans to cast Middle Earth into darkness, but he is repelled by the combined forces of Elves, Dwarves and Men . . . er, strike that, Steppenwolf brought the Motherboxes to Earth where he planned to rewrite reality, but the combined forces of Themyscirans, Atlantians, Gods, humans and Green Lanterns managed to repel him. The Motherboxes were then hidden, not destroyed, and apparently the governments became idiotic (the moment the Motherbox backstory was related in Justice League, my first thought was "the moment the space program began or Superman started exhibiting his powers, why wasn't one of the Motherboxes taken to the Moon?" and "Why didn't the Green Lantern for Earth get one of the Motherboxes off planet . . . the Corps must have known the three Motherboxes were there after they defeated Steppenwolf?").

So, there's no real thematic strength in Justice League and instead of any rhetorical argument, much of the film comes down to, sigh, yet another fist fight. Steppenwolf is an unfortunately generic villain for Justice League. He is characterized as the Destroyer Of Worlds, so what is his preoccupation with Earth? Earth was the site of his first defeat; what has he been doing since he was repelled the last time? If he's been out destroying worlds without his Motherboxes since he was first defeated, why does he rely upon their power again for his second stab at Earth?! And if he has been out destroying worlds, what the hell happened to the Green Lantern Corps? And if he hasn't been out wreaking havoc in the galaxy for thousands of years since his botched attempt to take Earth, doesn't that just make him the biggest poseur villain in cinematic history? The fact that these questions come up after only a moment's consideration of the adversary illustrates how flimsy his construction is within the movie.

And for a DC Cinematic Universe work, the final battle once again feels familiar. Night and darkness are used in Zack Snyder's films to hide details, which makes the special effects easier to execute, but make for far less complicated or compelling battle sequences. It's a pretty sad world where the attention to fine details is greater in video games than in major blockbuster films.

So, what works in Justice League? The snippets of character for the new protagonists all work. Barry Allen is characterized well and the fact that the defining characteristic for him outside his speed is his insatiable hunger is something that instantly sets him apart from the current television incarnation of the character. In a similar way, Cyborg is characterized intriguingly as a young man who is tormented by his own body and is not at all entirely in control of his powers, abilities, and technology. Aquaman delivers a decent assessment of the team before reducing Diana to a sex object (grumble. And, seriously - and I write this as a lifelong Wonder Woman fan! - Curry starts ogling Diana after leaving Mera under the sea; what does Diana have to offer Aquaman that Mera doesn't?!).

Justice League might not be a slam dunk of a film, but it puts its emphasis on far too many of the wrong things. The moment I enjoyed most was a simple exchange between Bruce Wayne and Diana. Wayne explains that he is getting too old for this kind of fight and he implores Diana to make her super hero alter-ego more available to the fights for which she is needed. It's a quiet moment, but a compelling one.

But, that's not what Justice League is about. It's about getting the team together, resurrecting a guy who can punch harder than the others (shouldn't Cyborg's technology have been able to evaluate Steppenwolf's vulnerability to freezing and given him an ice cannon?!), and making a giant effects-driven fight sequence to save the world from someone who never really had a chance to destroy it. The net result is a fast-paced popcorn movie that lacks resonance once it is over.

For other DC Comics Cinematic Universe works, please check out my reviews of:
Suicide Squad
Green Lantern
Man Of Steel

3.5/10

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

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

As Bad As One Might Suspect: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice Belabors Set-Up And Spectacle Over Substance!

The Good: Moments of Henry Cavill's performance, Moments of plot concept for the conspiracy
The Bad: Dull, Preposterous, Overlong, Ridiculous characterization, Terrible writing
The Basics: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice sucks.


When it comes to blockbuster movies, there are few movies I can think of that disappointed me more when I went back to them than Man Of Steel (reviewed here!). Seeing Man Of Steel on the big screen, early, it was a real thrill . . . but time, distance, and rewatching the movie truly lessened the film for me. So, when I first sat down to Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I was very concerned that history would either repeat itself (and I would be too lenient on the film) or I would over-compensate and be overly hard on the movie. The latter was a real concern for me from the moment Gal Godot was cast as Wonder Woman, as I have long advocated for Anne Hathaway for the role (check out that article here!).

After watching Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I am finally ready to write a review the way my wife has often ask that I do. My wife hates it when I waste my time writing long, well-conceived, complicated analyses of products and events that are very simply bad. Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is simple and bad . . . but most of it is not the fault of the performers or even director Zack Snyder. The problems with Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice all start with the writing.

Conceptually, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice tries to do too much, so it does none of it particularly well. The film is a belabored set-up to the forthcoming Justice League film and the scene that features Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) effectively introducing the other three members of the League (Green Lantern is not included!) stops the movie dead. It would have been better as a post-credits scene than a component of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice starts as a potential reflection on the nature of Superman and his role in the world. After Metropolis was virtually destroyed in Man Of Steel, Superman has become a divisive concept; a messianic figure and a potential threat to humanity for his autonomous, unaccountable, nature. That concept is blended poorly with Bruce Wayne's desire to reign in Superman, as he witnessed the carnage in Metropolis 18 months prior and experiences yet another loss in his life as a result. Rather than staying focused on either concept, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice becomes mired in a painfully simplistic conspiracy put together by Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is, arguably, the worst interpretation of the character ever and while actor Jesse Eisenberg is taking a lot of flack for it, he deserves remarkably little blame. Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is written as The Joker. Eisenberg plays him as appropriately twitchy and unsettled and I just kept waiting for the movie to take a clever turn what would have made it explicit that Lex Luthor was the Joker (elements like the Polaroid photos of Martha Kent seemed like foreshadowing in that regard). That moment never comes and instead of Lex Luthor being a genius who is actually motivated by the desire to save the world from its dependence on Superman, he is just a non-committed, rich version of The Joker.

Lois Lane and Clark Kent's relationship is portrayed as simplistic and bland. When Doomsday finally pops up, it looks like leftover footage of Cave Trolls from The Lord Of The Rings. And it is hard not to imagine Joss Whedon cringing as Wonder Woman finally makes her big screen debut as a half-rate sidekick who ultimately appears as muscle (virtually nothing of her cerebral nature is present)(Whedon having famously written a pitch or spec. script for Wonder Woman more than a decade ago, only to have it go nowhere).

Despite the spectacle (though most of it is surprisingly dark), simplistic and bland is an apropos description of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice. When the biggest geek-out factor is recognizing actors (on screen and voices) from Watchmen (reviewed here!) in the film, the movie has serious problems. More could be said, but it would be pointless: bad is bad and Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is bad.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Suicide Squad
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 - 1997
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

2.5/10

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

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

Yearning To Be The Next Fantasy Film Franchise, Beautiful Creatures Starts Fair.

The Good: Good pacing, Decent effects, Social conflict
The Bad: A lot of unconvincing acting, Lack of on-screen chemistry between the leads, Fairly predictable
The Basics: Beautiful Creatures looks good, but is melodramatic and unfortunately more stiff and familiar than it is daring.


In the wake of the completion of the cinematic rendition of The Twilight Saga, Hollywood has been desperately looking for the next cash cow to exploit for years to come. It seemed like The Hunger Games (reviewed here!) would be a sure-fire hit, but that did not quite work out for the producers of the film – it was the only film in the highest-grossing films of 2012 that did not make more in the world theater than in the U.S.! – and the surety of the pulp teen fantasy romance genre novel to translate into successful, critically well-considered films was very much in doubt. Enter Beautiful Creatures, 2013’s second of several such franchise-builders (Warm Bodies beat it to market by two weeks!).

I’ll admit; going into the screening of Beautiful Creatures, I had some trepidations. When I recently considered The Twilight Saga (reviewed here!) as a whole, I was forced to acknowledge that the individual films were probably rated higher than I would regard them, especially when viewed one after another. While each film has to stand on their own, I found that my own enthusiasm probably led me to rate the films higher than I might have objectively considered them. I was determined not to make the same mistake with Beautiful Creatures. Fortunately, I had absolutely no preconceived notions of what the film would be before I saw it. I have not read the book and so, this is a very pure review of the film itself; I can offer no comparison to how it stacks up against the novel. That said, Beautiful Creatures feels very much like a beginning . . . and it is.

In the small town of Gatlin, South Carolina, Ethan Wate is shocked when change comes to his school on the first day of his Junior year. The change is a new student, Lena, who is remarkable in that she is identical to the girl Ethan has been dreaming about. Soon, the school is abuzz about the strange new girl and her family, who – rumors are – have supernatural abilities. Ethan, however, feels drawn to Lena and almost immediately begins helping her and learning about her. Lena, lives with her Uncle, a recluse on the outskirts of town and was related to the founders of Gatlin. Ethan lives with his virtually absent father and is cared for by Amma, who speaks to the dead.

Lena is living with a weight; her impending sixteenth birthday will see her own magical powers come into bloom. At that time, purveyors of the dark arts and the forces who fight using good magic will both attempt to make her part of their ranks. Ethan suddenly finds himself immersed in a world of magic, women who look shockingly good (especially for their ages!), and powers that should be out of his understanding. But, while the rest of the town follows a mob mentality to rise against Lena and her family (which her mother, the dark Caster Serafine uses against her), Ethan gets closer to Lena and discovers that her struggle involves him more than he ever thought it would.

Beautiful Creatures is well-paced, but it feels pretty familiar in terms of plot. It’s like I Am Number Four (reviewed here!) had superpowers and aliens replaced with magic and supernatural beings and was blended then blended with Twilight and Frankenstein (or, I suppose, The Crucible). Lena is a classic character in the process of becoming and her story quickly dominates Beautiful Creatures. Unfortunately, as far as the character’s journey goes, Lena is at an unfortunate stage in her journey and one that makes her more of a tool for the whims of others than a realized character of her own. Lena quickly falls into the role of a rope in the tug-of-war between Serafine and Macon.

As is the conceit of all of these new genre pieces, there is a romance plot/subplot to Beautiful Creatures. Ethan and Lena move toward a romance with one another with all the subtlety of a thunderstorm in the Southern flatlands. It’s obvious and Beautiful Creatures adds nothing new, special, or different to the concept. In fact, this might be one of the more insulting outings in recent memories as it works to restore the notion that the female protagonist is a damsel in distress who might be saved by love (though Macon’s take on it is that the burgeoning relationship might be a distraction which causes Lena to lose her way, much the way an overprotective father clings to his daughter’s chastity in the antiquated notions of the “good girl”/”dirty girl” dichotomy).

The relationship between Lena and Ethan is hampered on screen by actress Alice Englert and actor Alden Ehrenreich. I promised myself that for the film Beautiful Creatures I would not comment on the blandly, obvious, stereotypical good looks of any of the performers, so to keep focused: Engler and Ehrenreich are fine on their own and they get some decent banter off one another. However, they have less than zero in the way of on-screen chemistry. The characters play off one another well, but when it comes time for physical intimacy or the implication of genuine affection between the two character, both actors seem unusually, tragically, stiff. While such things seldom last, there are innumerable movies where the stars hook up and have off-screen relationships during the filming of their projects and fans invariably respond with, “I’m not surprised!” It would be a shock if Ehrenreich and Englert had any sort of friendship, much less romantic involvement outside the filming, based on how stiff they are in the scenes where the deliver dialogue regarding their character’s emotions for one another.

The real scene stealer is Emmy Rossum (Emma Thompson and Jeremy Irons easily falling into the realm of predictable greatness as their powerful characters Serafine and Macon), who explodes onto the screen with an energetic sexuality that reminds one of the potential she had in The Phantom Of The Opera (reviewed here!). Despite her exuberance and the way she oozes sexual energy as Ridley, she never makes it seem cheap or easy, like her Shameless character.

But what truly sunk Beautiful Creatures into the realm of average for me was the mood as it related to the plot. Beautiful Creatures is supposed to be a tense film that has viewers wondering which way Lena will go. Will she fall to the forces of evil or become a tool of great good? The last time the choice was so utterly unconvincing was Return Of The Jedi (reviewed here!), where it took until I watched it on DVD with the commentary track on that I realized that George Lucas wanted the scene with Luke on the second Death Star to have fans on their edge of their seat believing he could go over to the Dark Side (for at least one hundred viewings over my lifetime before that, I never got that – it just didn’t land, it wasn’t going to happen). In a similar way, Beautiful Creatures throws out the ideas of destiny, the angry mob, and precedent (in the form of a number of very evil Casters related to Lena and a curse involving a Caster who fell in love with a mortal) to try to sell the viewer on the idea that this girl whose angst seems entirely to be about the possibility that she could be sucked into the dark side will go there.

Viewers are too smart for that. But, as Beautiful Creatures is the first of what is sure to be several movies based upon the books that spawned this series, not all the answers are contained in this film and there are seeds laid for the subsequent volumes. One hopes they will rise to something more remarkable than this.

For other fantasy films, please check out my reviews of:
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Warm Bodies
The Harry Potter Saga
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Labyrinth
Just My Luck

4/10

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.
| | |

The Quiet Death Of Rampant Capitalism: Margin Call

The Good: Great acting, Engaging plot, Moments of character, Mood
The Bad: Largely lacking in character development
The Basics: Margin Call traces an analyst’s discovery of a severe flaw at an investment bank through the early attempts to save the company at all costs.


It takes a lot to create a quiet, tense and engaging drama where almost nothing happens. It is hard to make one successful when it is about a group of people widely regarded as the enemy of the working class. Before tonight, the last film I saw that did that successfully was Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (reviewed here!). Tonight, the film that similarly engrossed me was Margin Call. I knew of Margin Call only from it popping up during award season last year and I picked it up from the library because I wanted something smart. It was exactly what I was looking for.

Margin Call is a financial drama. Margin Call is Wall Street (reviewed here!) without the charismatic villain. What it lacks in a memorable antagonist, it makes up for with realism and an incredible, largely male cast working at the top of their game. As an anti-capitalist, it is easy to fall in love with Margin Call.

The day a senior risk analyst is fired from the investment bank he works for, he hands off a flash drive with his last project to the only guy who seems to care, a junior analyst, Peter Sullivan. After the survivors of the round of firings go out to party, Peter stays and completes the work done by Eric Dale. Peter quickly discovers that the risk investments the firm has invested in are not holding their value. Realizing that the collapse of the investments is not imminent, but rather is in process (and has been for almost two weeks prior), Peter calls in his manager, Will Emerson.

Will, Seth, and their boss Sam Rogers quickly analyze the data and conclude that the numbers are valid. Calling the head of the company, John Tuld, in, the executive committee of the investment bank quickly determines the course of action: the next morning, the bank will try to sell off as many of the mortgages as they can and be the first out of the riskiest market. As the company scrambles to find and get Eric Dale back in the building, the people involved wrestle with the magnitude their decisions will have on the American and world economies.

Paired with Capitalism: A Love Story (reviewed here!), Margin Call American cinema seems willing to finally indict the institutions of capitalism in the United States. Both films point out the folly of the system in its disparities and acknowledge the human nature flaw that keeps it going: more than wanting to change the system, those who suffer the most at a result of capitalism want to simply become the ones who control it. It’s a dark and problematic flaw, but one that – largely – allows the corrupt system to remain intact. The 1% maintain control over the 99% because of the mass delusion among the majority that they might join the ranks of the 1%. Margin Call is a film that explores one “oh, shit!” moment of the 1%.

Blissfully, Margin Call is largely lacking in jargon. While a very telling and sharp drama, the recurring joke of Margin Call is that the higher up the executive chain Peter Sullivan brings his findings, the more simply the executives want him to explain things. As a result, viewers who are patient enough to sit through the horrified looks on the faces of Seth (Penn Badgley), Will Emerson (Paul Bettany), Sam Rogers (Kevin Spacey), and Jared Cohen (Simon Baker) before Jeremy Irons’s John Tuld enters the film to have Zachary Quinto’s Peter explain the problem sufficiently and in simple terms, will be rewarded with a full understanding of the scope of the impending financial disaster. For those who do not fully comprehend it, the film’s final moments, wherein Will’s phone calls are shared during the sell-off, make it perfectly clear.

Margin Call is like 12 Angry Men without the deeper character studies. Instead it is a plot-based film where a pretty amazing cast acting with complete credibility. Quinto, Bettany (it’s weird seeing him in a film where he isn’t shooting someone or punching them in the face!), Spacey, Irons, and Badgley all seem believable as financial managers. Quinto, whose character is actually a rocket scientist, absolutely sells the notion that he could be in risk analysis. Simon Baker is similarly good and Stanley Tucci, who plays Eric Dale, is his usual wonderful self. He has a way of taking a bit role and dominating every scene he has with it.

Kevin Spacey is similarly wonderful as Sam, the lone executive to initially take a real stand against the executive board’s plan. Ironically, his best performance is a bit of facial expression acting in one of the deleted scenes.

On DVD, Margin Call features two deleted scenes – which would have served to further humanize one character and the other that would have given Jeremy Irons a more obviously adversarial role in the piece -, two featurettes, a commentary track, and a photo gallery. They are pretty typical for this type of drama (it’s never one of the actors in a featurette who says, “I hated working on this film and I disagree with the premise!” so there are no real surprises here).

As financial times get tougher for the majority get tougher, perhaps our education should come in sharing a progression of movies. It is hard to imagine who would not be ready for revolt after watching, in close succession, Margin Call, Capitalism: A Love Story and V For Vendetta (reviewed here!).

For other works with Simon Baker, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Devil Wears Prada
Something New
The Affair Of The Necklace
L.A. Confidential

7/10

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

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

Oscar Pandering Season Officially Starts With The Words

The Good: Excellent sense of realism, Interesting characters, Wonderful performances
The Bad: Pacing goes off in the late-middle/early-end and never quite recovers.
The Basics: The Words is a legitimate Oscar contender, though it falls apart in the end, it is riveting until it does!


Oscar Pandering Season, a time of year I usually enjoy, is the only major movie releases season that is broken down into two parts. Only a few years ago, Oscar Pandering Season was Thanksgiving through the end of the year. But, in recent years, with the release of films like The Social Network (reviewed here!) and The Help (reviewed here!) in late August and September, other studios have followed suit and realized that they might not have to drop all of their attempts for Best Picture nods right before the Academy voters have to nominate their favorite films of the year! This year, September – which historically was a weaker movie season filled with date movies and horror flicks – is packed with films from both the major studios and art houses that are geared toward getting nominations for Oscars.

The first obvious attempt to score the Oscar nods is The Words. The Words has a number of elements that would make it a fine Best Picture nominee and is lightyears better than The Artist (reviewed here!), though it is not a truly great movie. Bradley Cooper getting a Best Actor nomination and Jeremy Irons getting (I’d lean, at this point toward him winning) a Best Supporting Actor nod are pretty sure bets. The Words makes excellent use out of them and, very briefly, Zoe Saldana. Honestly, Zoe Saldana and Bradley Cooper suddenly started popping up in everything, so it is pretty amazing that it has taken them this long to appear in a movie together!

Clay Hammond is a famous author who is reading his new novel, The Words to a captivated audience of the literary elite. The story of his novel focuses on Rory Jansen, a writer who will win the American Fellowship Of Arts And Letters award. Five years before that, he is a struggling novelist who moves into a New York City loft with his girlfriend, Dora. Struggling with his writing for years, he is eventually financially cut off by his father, who insists he get a regular paying job. Rory starts work at a major publishing house working in the mailroom and he spends his days delivering packages throughout the building, which exhausts him until his writing aspirations are pretty much dead.

But on his honeymoon in Paris, he finds an old leather briefcase and Dora buys it for him. Returning home, he learns that a prestigious agency is eager to meet with him and when he attends that meeting, he is heartbroken to learn that his submitted novel is great, but not marketable. So, Rory begins putting his life in order and when he is filing papers into the briefcase, he discovers a manuscript there. That manuscript moves him and when he becomes obsessed with it, he transcribes it on his computer. There, Dora finds it and insists that he publish it. While Rory tries initially to tell her the truth, her pride in “his” abilities leads him to promote the manuscript as his own and one favor from the in-house agent, Joseph Cutler, puts him on the path that will make him a huge success. But all of his success teeters when he meets an old man: the author of the mysteriously found manuscript!

The Words is poignant in its realism, both for the continual rejection of being a writer and the strain that the poverty of the young writer puts on relationships. Dora and Rory do not have it easy and it does not take long before it becomes clear that (after a certain point) Dora is financially supporting the couple. In fact, one of the weaknesses in The Words is how it fails to explore the struggle Dora might have in supporting Rory, especially as they live an impoverished lifestyle. Say what you will about women’s lib, but the psychological backlash against a woman supporting an artistic husband is pretty huge and that The Words neglects to address that explicitly weakens an otherwise powerfully realistic experience that dominates the first half of the film.

The sense of realism is compelling and, for those who have lived it, potentially difficult to watch. Co-writers and directors Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal absolutely nail the reality of constant rejection and the sense of constant strain it puts on a relationship. The first half of The Words should be mandatory viewing for anyone who is considering getting into a relationship with a serious writer.

Dennis Quaid draws the short straw for the acting and character fronts. His character, Clay Hammond, all but admits that he is useless to the piece. Hammond serves, more often than not, as the narrator and it speaks to the use of actors as tools for selling the film to audiences that Olivia Wilde manages to get billing as high as she does for the narrator’s seductress, Daniella. Quaid does what he can with the lame roll, but part of the problem with The Words comes from the movie shifting focus from his characters to him.

Conversely, Zoe Saldana’s Dora has a significant presence only in the first act of The Words, but she shines in the role. Saldana’s Dora is something the actress is not known for; subtle, quiet, nuanced. In the dishwashing scene she shares with Bradley Cooper is a powerful emotional expression between their characters largely because of her body language. Jeremy Irons dominates the second act as The Old Man in much the same way. While it is fairly obvious who he is from the opening moments of the film, when Irons’s character follows Rory to Central Park, he begins to steal the show.

But it is Bradley Cooper who is charged with making The Words work and he pulls it off. For sure, the movie has problems – largely by trying to make Hammond more important than he actually is to the viewers – but Cooper is not one of them. Cooper makes the fictional character of Rory Jansen memorable and intriguing. Never before have I seen Bradley Cooper pull off quiet and emotional the way he does in The Words and he is truly magnificent in the role.

The Words may be Oscar nomination bait, but it kicks off the season by setting the bar high enough to make the next few months an exciting time to go to the movies. And, The Words is so engaging that by the time it takes a turn for the problematic, the viewer is already hooked and we, like Daniella, must know how it ends.

For other films focusing on writers, please check out my reviews of:
Adaptation.
Wonderboys
Young Adult

7.5/10

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

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

The Lesson From The Time Machine Is: If You Fail Once, Don't Try Again!

The Good: Moments of special effects, Jeremy Irons, Moments of concept
The Bad: Most of the acting, Character, Execution of plot
The Basics: In a generally disappointing film, Alexander Hartdegen tries once to save his lover, gives up and jumps to the future to help humans fight being eaten by their cousin race.


After I watched L.A. Confidential for the first time (reviewed here!), I remember being instantly enthusiastic about Guy Pearce. He had impressed me in that movie and I wanted to find something else he was in, so I sought and I found The Time Machine right away. As part of my self-proclaimed insanity, when I recently watched Memento (reviewed here!) and went to reference my review for The Time Machine, I was baffled to discover I had not written one. So, I was compelled to take in this science fiction film a second time (last night).

Alexander Hartdegen is a radical physics instructor who has fallen in love with Emma, a simple woman in the late 1800s. Alexander proposes to Emma and no sooner are they engaged than she is killed in a mugging. Bummer. Alexander spends four years working on a time machine, which he utilizes to return to the night of the proposal, where he takes Emma into the city (as opposed to into the park) to prevent her from dying. When this plan keeps her from being mugged, she ends up run down by a carriage and killed and Alexander ends up so distraught that he hops into his time machine and travels to the future to try to figure out how he change the past. When he is leaving the future, he accidentally skips forward a short distance again to a time when excavating the moon has essentially blown it up and our satellite is radically altering Earth's orbit and jeopardizing humanity.

Escaping this near future knocks Alexander unconscious with the violence of the quakes he is experiencing and Alexander is thrown into the distant future, approximately 800,000 years into the future. There, he discovers recognizable humans living in huts and caves above the rivers where they are preyed upon by Morlocks for food and breeding stock.

Maybe I just didn't write a review the first time around because I was so terribly disappointed with The Time Machine; after all, I watched it for Guy Pearce and his slack-jawed performance of Alexander Hartdegen was one of the serious drawbacks of the movie. Seriously. Pearce spends all of his time in his native time (and up until the final leap into the distant future) with his mouth open in one of the dumbest expressions of all time.

This does not aid the story or the character because in addition to looking like an utter moron throughout a significant portion of the movie, Alexander remains one of the least sensible characters of all time. As someone with something of an obsessive personality, I've no fear in saying that if one is determined enough to shatter the laws of physics for love, when things don't work out the first time, I'd try again. Alexander fails to save Emma after his first attempt, so he gives up. How ridiculous is that?!

Granted, it's not the most natural thing to solve one's problems by going back in time to try to undo the problems, but if one is determined enough to do that, common sense seems to indicate that such a person would be of such a character as to not give up after the first time. So, taking Emma out of the park fails. What stops Alexander from going back again and simply incapacitating the mugger? Or delaying the carriage that runs Emma over in his first time travel experiment? Logic dictates that with each attempt, odds of success increase as the number of Alexander's working to save her life increase as well.

This is just an irreconcilable character problem that is utterly unforgivable. What's even worse is Alexander's eventual surrender to fate in the distant future. The humans and the Morlocks, the subterranean evolutionary offspring of humanity, have been locked in effectual warfare for thousands of years and Alexander's refusal to go back and stop the apocalypse that creates the Morlocks and makes humans into their meat product is just ridiculous. Man loves woman enough to go back in time (once) to try to save her, man does not love Humanity enough to even make a single attempt.

Part of the problem here is certainly the acting, which is compounding the lousy characters. The best performances are bit performances in The Time Machine. Mark Addy plays Alexander's best friend, David Filby in Alexander's native time. Addy gets into the period part and is believable as the stiff but likable associate of Alexander with his sympathetic delivery of lines intended to heal his wounded friend. Similarly, Jeremy Irons is great as the villainous Uber-Morlock, though he comes into the movie so late that by the time he makes his appearance, the viewer just does not care. Irons has a much more substantial and better role in The Mission, reviewed here.

Guy Pearce, though, is not at the top of his game here. His performance does not make or break the movie, but he fairly bumbles through the story, teetering as he does with a weak character on a pretty poor script. He's not given a lot of decent lines in the distant future and as much of the movie is spent there, it just weakens the whole piece.

Samantha Mumba is, sadly, unremarkable as Mara, Alexander's friend and ally in the distant future. And Orlando Jones, in his cameos as Vox is simply Orlando Jones. I like Orlando Jones on MadTV. He's funny and it was an excellent starting point for him. When Jones, as Vox, begins to sing in the library, it seems like Jones, not the character he is playing and (writer) John Logan's addition of "Live long and prosper" as a line for Vox just fell flat.

The special effects are adequate and succeed in being generally special, at least during the actual time traveling sequences. Problematically, some of the basic shots (Alexander in front of the library in the future springs instantly to mind) are so obviously bluescreen shots that they are distracting. The score during the big leap forward is pretty wonderful.

On the overall, though, H.G. Wells's concept is corrupted by writers David Duncan and John Logan and executed in an unremarkable way by director Simon Wells. Even a science fiction fan is unlikely to enjoy this outing, even on a rainy day after their entire collection is exhausted. I had to sit through it twice to write that; no need for you to make the same mistake!

For other works with Sienna Guillory, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Inkheart
Love Actually

4/10

For other films, 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.
| | |

Surprisingly Entertaining, The Pink Panther 2Is Better Than Steve Martin's First Outing As Inspector Clouseau!

The Good: Funny, Moments of performance
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs.
The Basics: Actually funny and charming, The Pink Panther 2 reminds viewers that Steve Martin is a comic genius!


If I do not enjoy the first film in a series, I will almost never bother with a sequel. This, I suppose, is probably quite normal, but it bears repeating. So, when I had a chance to take in a screening of the sequel to the loathsome remake of The Pink Panther with Steve Martin, I was somewhat hesitant. However, my fiance was excited about the film, so it seemed like a great way for us to spend some time together. I also promised to never curve reviews just because my partner liked something.

That said, I enjoyed The Pink Panther 2, even more than Steve Martin's first outing as Inspector Jacques Clouseau. Every now and then, I go into a comedy I prejudge as lame and I come out completely and pleasantly surprised. The last time that happened was when I took in Get Smart (reviewed here!) and was shocked by how it actually had a motif. The Pink Panther 2 is not as smart or surprising - it is plagued by a terribly predictable plot, for example - but it is solidly funny and it is worth seeing. Indeed, when this comes out on DVD, it is a solid recommend for seeing, even if not the buy. That said, my fiancé and I laughed . . . a lot and with good reason. The Pink Panther 2 is quite funny.

When priceless artifacts like the Shroud Of Turin, the Magna Carta and the Imperial sword, French Inspector Jacques Clouseau is called in to lead a dream team of investigators from around the world. The perpetrator of the crimes appears to be a master criminal called The Tornado, who stopped working ten years prior. Determined to protect the Pink Panther diamond, which authorities worry might be the next targeted item, Clouseau joins the dream team and no sooner does he leave French soil than the Pink Panther diamond is stolen.

Thus, the dream team of Vicenzo, Pepperidge, Kenji and Sonia (an expert in The Tornado's escapades) descends upon France, where they begin investigating the Pink Panther's theft. Aided by Ponton, Clouseau - who has been on parking ticket detail for over a year prior - witlessly begins investigating, despite the heavy intellectual competition from the other members of the team. Plagued by a love for his assistant, Nicole, that he is unable to express and Vincenzo's advanced upon her, Clouseau sneaks, burns and stumbles his way onto the trail of the Tornado, whom he is not even certain is the actual thief!

The Pink Panther 2 is a mystery comedy and unfortunately, anyone who has seen any amount of mysteries will be unsurprised by who the thief is. In fact, in treating the film like a mystery, I overthought and my first guess - Ponton's wife of ten years, the first character to have a mention to "ten years" outside the Tornado - was wrong. However, once it became clear that Ponton's wife was a mostly off-screen character, the solution to the mystery is actually quite obvious and, in fact, painfully so. In fact, the guilty party might as well enter the film with a big sign that reads "Red Herring, I didn't do it! Wink! Wink!"

But, of course, the Pink Panther series is not about great crime fighting or intelligent detective work, it is essentially about a detective who bumbles his way into the right answers. The point is to be funny; this is a slapstick movie and as that it works wonderfully. I am not generally inclined toward slapstick and I found myself laughing a lot at The Pink Panther 2. But the thing is, a lot of the humor I found myself laughing at was not the slapstick humor, it was the verbal humor. So, for example, my fiance and I were the only ones to laugh at the hilarious line when Clouseau hands Chief Inspector Dreyfus (played by John Cleese) a report on sixteen months of parking tickets, Dreyfus responds, "I shall waste no time in reading this." Hilarious. And there are a number of verbal gags like that, like Nicole and Clouseau talking about remembering to forget the night of passion they almost had.

Even the jokes that are telegraphed or are obvious setups - like Dreyfus telling Clouseau to deny that Dreyfus had assigned him to parking ticket detail - still pay off in funny ways and it works. The Pink Panther 2 has a lot of physical comedy, from Clouseau being dragged by a car in the earliest sequences to him snooping around the Tornado's fence's estate. And in this regard, Steve Martin is an obvious and wonderful choice for Clouseau who lives up to the comedic reputation and potential that he fell too far short of in the first film.

The Pink Panther 2 has a decent cast that is used quite well. In addition to Steve Martin, the film is populated by John Cleese and Lily Tomlin, as the political correctness officer who tries to train Clouseau to be more respectful to coworkers and different ethnicities in some of the film's funniest verbal moments. Cleese, Tomlin and Martin are all expected to be funny because of their long histories in comedy and they each live up to their potential in that regard. Conversely, acting heavyweights Jeremy Irons, Andy Garcia and Alfred Molina all appear in The Pink Panther 2. While Irons is not given anything especially comedic to work with, Garcia either falls flat with much of his humor or is unable to present the comedy he is given in a funny way. Molina adapts well to humor, actually poking fun at some of the dignity he comes at so many of his serious roles with by playing an arrogant Brit.

Jean Reno makes a great straightman to Martin's Clouseau as Ponton. Similarly, Emily Mortimer makes for a good romantic foil to Martin's Clouseau and that works for the film perfectly. Mortimer plays Nicole as plain and shy in a way that she seems quite credible at. This makes Martin's performance as the often over-the-top Clouseau resonate with a reality that makes the viewer feel like the world of The Pink Panther is filled with a realistically diverse population.

Martin, for his part, reminds the viewer that with decent material - and he co-wrote The Pink Panther 2 - he is able to navigate physical and verbal comedy like the seasoned pro he is. Truth be told, though, the Clouseau character is mostly a one-joke character. He is the hapless fool who stumbles into good fortune and the clues needed to succeed. The rest of the Dream Team are similarly monolithic, so it is not like The Pink Panther 2 is a great work of character development or any particular genius in that regard.

But it is fun and it is funny. My partner lauds it as one of the funniest movies ever and I am loathe to contradict my fiance. The Pink Panther 2 is fun, funny and it is good for consistent laughs. But it is not an amazing film. Going into it with that expectation would be ridiculous. Without it, though, it is enough fun to recommend and enjoy. Thoroughly.

For other comedy sequels, please visit my reviews of:
The Whole Ten Yards
Shrek Forever After
Scary Movie 4

6/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an updated listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Better Than I Remember It, The Lion King Is Still Robbed Of Perfection By Disney Conceits.

The Good: Animation, Great voice acting, Good character journey, Amazing Blu-Ray bonus features
The Bad: One musical number didn't seem to fit, Timon and Pumbaa section seemed more "Disney" than fit the movie.
The Basics: The Lion King lives up to being a (mostly) timeless epic, save where it is constrained by Disney to try to appeal to children.


The day after I was supposed to be able to present my wife with The Lion King as an anniversary gift, the film finally arrived for us on Blu-Ray, which has led to some truly troubling customer service calls with the Disney Movie Club. Yeah, I'm opening my review of The Lion King with a bit of griping, both because the fabulous gift didn't arrive in time and because I think it's just indicative of Disney's "make money at all cost" attitude that I find troubling beyond belief. That and the fact that as we watched the movie, my wife nudged me and noted, "I bet that would look cool in 3-D;" this after I had bugged her for the last three weeks to let me take her out to the movie, one of her all-time favorites, but she declined repeatedly. But even the 3-D release of The Lion King is part of what I am irked about in terms of Disney's ultra-capitalist agenda. Having announced months ago the DVD/Blu-Ray release, the studio made sure the 3-D version hit theaters for a limited release in the weeks prior. What's the point? Disney released the 3-D film as, essentially, a paid advertisement for the Blu-Ray release. Keeping the film fresh in viewers' minds, they released the Blu-Ray after the audience was primed. It's a smart move and I am sure they sold a surprising number of the 3-D Blu-Ray discs to the viewers who did not read the fine print and realize that one must have the 3-D television and player to make use of that disc.

Outside that, there is surprisingly little to gripe about with The Lion King, so I'll get to why this isn't a perfect film in my book right off the bat and then lavish the film with the praise it actually does deserve. When I reviewed Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl (here!), one of my immediate gripes with the movie was the inclusion of Pintel and Ragetti, a duo that I define as a "Disney Conceit." The sidekick characters appear for comic relief and are more or less unnecessary for the story. They are, however, consistent with the formula Disney has come up with to create a successful movie. It is disappointing in The Lion King that that formula is adhere to, instead of defied, and the section of the film that has Timon and Pumbaa robs Simba of a genuine character journey and replaces it with a plot-convenient answer to where Simba is for years. The film (and viewers) deserve better, despite the quality of the song "Hakuna Matata." That and Scar's song "Be Prepared," which felt less congruent with the character than some of the other songs, rob the film of perfection.

That said, it is easy to see why The Lion King has been beloved by fans of Disney films and modern cinema. It is easy to see how it became a world-famous musical play and while the story is universal enough to arguably survive without being a musical, it is an engaging one with a soundtrack that is exceptionally easy to recognize.

In the savanna in Africa is an area the animals call Pride Rock, where the king of Pride Rock oversees the animals and shows off his newly born son, Simba. Mufasa is proud of his heir and frustrated when his brother, Scar, refuses to show proper respect to Simba. Mufasa teaches Simba about the interconnected nature of life on the plains, as well as about the responsibilities of being a good leader. He also forbids Simba from going to a dark area on the edge of the kingdom. Simba mentions this to Scar and Scar manipulates Simba, and his friend Nala, into going there. At the elephant graveyard, Scar lets a trio of hyenas attack Simba, who is rescued by Mufasa.

Observing their reactions, Scar determines how he may best ascend to the throne. Making a pact with the hyenas, Scar lures Simba into a canyon, where he has the hyenas cause a stampede with wildebeests. When Simba becomes trapped, Scar lures Mufasa there to kill him and then manipulates Simba into fleeing. Setting the hyenas upon him, Scar assumes the kingdom while Simba finds himself saved by a warthog and merecat and spends the next years lazing about in denial of his potential. But when Simba and Nala are reunited, Simba must decide whether or not to run from his responsibilities or depose Scar and his hyena army.

The Lion King tells a pretty universal story of the importance of understanding both the nature of power and the ecological interconnectivity of all things. Mufasa is a smart, responsible king who tries to educate Simba on how life in all of its aspects needs to be kept in balance. Unfortunately, Scar's machinations upset Simba's education and he is thrown off balance, becoming a loafer instead of a king in his exile. But fortunately, enough of the seeds of Mufasa's lessons stick in order to make it realistic for Simba to have a conflict when Nala re-enters his life.

The characters in The Lion King are interesting and the film is one of the few Disney movies with an all-animal cast. Mufasa, Scar, Simba, Nala and Simba's mother Sarafina, are all lions and the animators give them enough coloring and mannerism differences to make them easy tell apart from one another, save Nala and Sarafina (at least once Nala is an adult). The rest of the animals are distinctive enough that they can be easily recognized, though in the action shots, it is pretty difficult to tell which of the three hyenas is which. The Lion King is very easy for children to follow, then. The film largely focuses on Simba and his character arc from young and eager to disillusioned (in what would be his teens) is decent and he is likable throughout, even though a more complicated character arc is not forthcoming. Supporting characters like Rafiki and Zazu are distinctive, smart and funny enough to make Timon and Pumbaa unnecessary.

Thematically, there is little to draw children to the film and part of the problem with the movie is how Disney and the twenty-nine credited writers try to make it into more of a young adult film as opposed to keeping it as an adult fable. The maniacal quality of Scar is unlikely to truly upset children these days and directors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff show most of the brutality of Scar and the hyenas off-screen.

The vocal acting in The Lion King is universally exceptional. James Earl Jones makes Mufasa come alive with his deep, distinctive voice and Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Matthew Broderick help Simba evolve well from a child to an adult. Robert Guillume give an interesting performance as Rafiki and Jeremy Irons brings his predictable power to his performance as Scar. But the real surprise for me was how Rowan Atkinson dominated the role of Zazu, Mufasa's advisor. Atkinson has a wonderful voice and in addition to having amazing comic timing, he is great at seriously conveying information as Mufasa's advisor. That Atkinson is so seldom associated with the film is unfortunate as his performance is original and homogeneously entertaining.

On Blu-Ray, The Lion King truly comes alive with so many bonus features that viewers will spend far more time on them than the actual film. The movie has multiple commentary tracks and a handful of deleted scenes with the co-directors discussing just why the scenes were left out of the film, which is both interesting and informative. Other bonus features include sing-along subtitles in the film and a production gallery with notes on how the characters were designed. For those looking for a thorough knowledge of how the movie was developed, The Lion King delivers a great number of bonus features that are actually worth the money.

Ultimately, The Lion King succeeds because what it has in it is not only universal, but presented in a way that maintains its universal qualities. The film does not make dated references and the songs are a safe brand of pop-rock that makes them easy to enjoy and listen to. In other words, were it not for the film trying to be trendy and formulaic, The Lion King could have truly lived up to its potential as a timeless movie.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Monsters, Inc.
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

8.5/10

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

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

| | |

Power Of The Church, Power Of Man, The Enduring Greatness Of The Mission

The Good: Exceptional acting, Phenomenal cinematography and direction, Intriguing plot, Decent character development
The Bad: Could have used more extras on DVD, Moments the soundtrack telegraphs emotions
The Basics: In a perfect historical drama, a slave trader becomes a Jesuit, moves into the jungle and must defend his new people against his old allies.


I think a true test of the greatness of a movie is when one adds it to their permanent collection, that unshrinking library that one defines as the essential movies they must have in their possession. The real test in this context comes when one adds a movie they study in school to their permanent library. Let's face it, often when studying a film in school it's often so analyzed that one pretty much never wants to see it again (or it's used as a cheap excuse not to read a book). To wit, there are so few high school students who come home and put To Kill A Mockingbird on their Christmas list after watching it in school. Were that the case, I suspect that title would be one of the all-time best selling DVDs. So, it should be quite something to say that I waited until The Mission came out on a 2-disc special edition DVD with all of the bonuses before buying it, over a decade, because I loved the movie and I was so unimpressed with the pan-and-scan VHS version after watching this in my 9th grade Global Studies class. So powerful was the movie that it stuck with me that long and it was almost always near the top of my list until I finally got it.

When Rodrigo Mendoza, a Spanish slaver working for Portugal, kills his brother in an honor duel, in a fit of anger, he imprisons himself and stops capturing natives in Brazil for use as slaves. He is visited in his isolation by Father Gabriel, a young Jesuit who has a mission in a remote jungle in Brazil. He challenges Mendoza to join him and his order to make some good in the world and to work for his forgiveness. Gabriel and Mendoza journey to the mission where Mendoza begins to work with the people he used to hunt. Soon, however, his path to redemption takes an abrupt turn when the territory the mission is in is transferred from Spain to Portugal, which still is involved with the slave trade.

This is a brilliant period piece that is set in the 18th Century and the first note about this movie has to be that it is an exceptional character piece. Despite the giant political issues being explored, never subjugated to the amazing scenery of the South American jungle, the characters shine through with their story. This is the tale of Rodrigo's redemption and Father Gabriel's attempt to save his soul. And their character journeys are exceptional and they are the dominant focus of the movie.

That's not to say that the movie is not a lushly filmed cinematic masterpiece, because it is. Director Roland Joffe takes the script by Robert Bolt and explodes the writing into an incredible visual feat. Great direction is not just cinematography and Joffe succeeds as a well-rounded director, establishing a visual, auditory and tonal presence throughout the film. In fact, the soundtrack to The Mission, while it stands beautifully on its own, is so perfectly blended and timed to the imagery that it's impossible to imagine the images Joffe presents without this specific score.

Father Gabriel is a wonderful character and for those who might worry that The Mission is some subtle evangelical tool, let me ease your mind. While Gabriel preaches peace, love and brotherhood, the religious dogma is balanced with a very realistic view of Church politics. Because the conflicts of the Crown and Church are not always synonymous, The Mission quite effectively reveals the weaknesses of the Church hierarchy and it does it in ways that leave Father Gabriel unquestioning in his faith, but disgusted with the organization.

Mendoza is an incredible character and his transformation throughout the film is compelling and realistic. The strength of his loss is powerful and what makes his character work is the temper and willpower he exhibits in the beginning of the movie as a slaver do not simply go away. Mendoza refocuses his willpower as devotion and his rage as activism. It's a brilliant study on what a man may do to change his life and grow as a human. Unfortunately, the resolution to the story and his character arc make some disturbing insinuations.

The characters would certainly be diminished were it not for the actors portraying them. Mendoza is played by Robert De Niro and this is one of his most underappreciated roles (this and his place as Harry Tuttle in Brazil, reviewed here!). De Niro brings his a-game creating Mendoza with an intensity and strength as a slaver, a broken man as a killer (his whole body language and voice change), and humble as a budding Jesuit. De Niro is unlike any other role he has played as Mendoza.

Jeremy Irons plays Father Gabriel and he is quiet and commanding as the Jesuit priest. Irons has a quiet dignity that allows him to appear righteous while still connoting humble. Irons speaks in quiet, unassuming tones that are what many associate with a holy man. Gabriel is ethical, strong and dignified and Irons creates his performance of him with his whole being.

The Mission employed natives, which gives the film a very authentic feel. As such, watching them getting captured and killed can be pretty disturbing. This movie requires almost no imagination as everything is expertly revealed to the audience by Roland Joffe. Whether you never saw it in the first run or have been waiting for a great set, this DVD presentation of The Mission is bound to be as good as it gets, with its second disc with a number of featurettes on the making of the movie.

There is a commentary track on the DVD, but the Behind the Scenes second disc does quite a bit of repetition of information. Plus, it seemed odd that the second disc is just one featurette, but it's a decent one. This is a great movie for anyone who likes a good period piece or a truly great and enduring historical drama.

For other films featuring Liam Neeson, please check out my reviews of:
Unknown
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader
The Next Three Days
The A-Team
Clash Of The Titans
The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Batman Begins
Love Actually
Star Wars - Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
Schindler's List

9.5/10

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

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

| | |

Lolita: Nothing So Mysterious Or Sensual

The Good: Early tone, Moments of acting
The Bad: Inconsistent characterization, Execution of plot, Resolution
The Basics: Lolita is a clearly sub-par film fails to be interesting in that it is too inconsistent.


If you're expecting Lolita to be an enjoyable sexual thriller, you're in for a big disappointment. In fact, if you're some righteous pervert, hoping to see some young flesh like all of those e-mails your Hotmail account keeps getting then this, too, is the wrong film for you. After all, there are international laws and this is not Holland. Thus, the fifteen year old girl playing Dolores (Lolita) is never seen in any real state of undress. In fact, up until the last ten minutes, there's so little actually on screen that outside the theme and the tension, a PG rating is more appropriate. No kidding. And in the last ten minutes, all the nudity is male.

So, Lolita is about a writer/professor who has basically aged while searching for the deceased love of his life. That process has led Humbert Humbert to view girls (not women) as sexually accessible and more desirable than their older counterparts because they more closely resemble his lost love. To that end, he is summering with Charlotte Haze and Humbert encounters her daughter, Dolores. Dolores is a rambunctious child, spontaneous, annoying. She's thirteen and she's being sent to summer camp, though she clearly has an attraction to Humbert. As a necessity to keep Dolores in his life, Humbert marries Charlotte and things are going well until Charlotte dies in a freak accident leaving Humbert and Dolores thrown together.

What follows is an hour and a half of Dolores and Humbert driving around. Dolores is tedious and annoying, Humbert goes from being compassionate and lusty to obsessive and brooding. The characters don't so much as follow sensible arcs either as they change abruptly. Dolores is clearly disturbed going one moment from being fun to screaming to bratty. She seems to accept and enjoy things, then wigs out on a hairtrigger. Humbert goes from having a reasonable story (man in love) to simple flat-charactered pedophile quicker than you can say "not only 'statutory' rape."

The plot could have been good, but the characters make it impossible to execute well. Humbert turns out to be rather an idiot, reaching the obvious conclusion for one of the main plot points only when it is told to him. This leads directly to the ending and it's pretty sad because of the time lapses that occur between the plot event and its resolution. I refuse to ruin the surprise of what that is.

The resolution, though is unsatisfying. Going from Humbert having to be told the obvious to his action and then an ending that stops about two minutes too early, leaving the final resolution to be told rather than shown.

In the end, Lolita isn't titillating, it's not entertaining. It's not even terribly disturbing. Well, it is, but not for the reasons the filmmakers want it to be. It's disturbing because it's inconsistent, poorly executed and often confused. This is a film not worth your time. Were it not for the directing and occasional moments in Jeremy Irons (Humbert) and Swain's (Dolores) acting, I'd say avoid it entirely.

For other movies that explore sexuality, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Love And Other Drugs
American Beauty
Friends With Benefits

3/10

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

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