Goofy, Grassed, Grand - Inherent Vice Translates Pynchon To Screen Well!

The Good: Wonderful acting, Distinct setting, Fun-to-watch characters, Good direction
The Bad: Unnecessary narrations, Needlessly complex at points
The Basics: Not as fun as reading Pynchon, P.T. Anderson makes a compelling film with Inherent Vice that captures the ‘70s drug culture in California well.


Without a doubt, the film I was most excited about in 2014 was The Zero Theorem (reviewed here!). While that might seem like a strange place to begin my review of Inherent Vice, it might make more sense when I note that Inherent Vice is this year’s The Zero Theorem. Allow me to explain; in 2013, The Zero Theorem was put into very limited release in the U.S. right around my birthday and my plan was to go see it with my wife on the big screen as part of that personal event. Alas, it was not to be; the film was delayed repeatedly in the U.S. and came out here in even limited release than it was supposed to! In 2014, the earliest showings of Inherent Vice also seemed like they would coincide with my birthday, but the film was delayed until Oscar Pandering Season. The result was a delayed sense of excitement for the film.

Add to that, Inherent Vice lives in the shadow of The Master (reviewed here!), a film that ruined my birthday back in 2012. Seriously. My wife saved up to pay for the day out and we made a whole event of driving to a theater that was actually showing The Master, because of my love of the works of writer/director P.T. Anderson and then the film sucked righteous balls (is, I believe, the delicate, p.c. way of saying it). So, Inherent Vice became a film I was excited about, but I did not attach a temporal limitation on that excitement. Now out in wide release, I finally managed to see the latest film by P.T. Anderson.

Inherent Vice is based upon the novel Inherent Vice (reviewed here!) by Thomas Pynchon and it is worth noting that while I have read and reviewed the book, this shall remain a very pure review of the film alone. That said, it’s a pretty exciting thing for me to see one of my favorite directors tackle the work of one of my favorite authors. While I have so far considered The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) the most Pynchon-esque film I’ve yet seen, I was eager to see how Anderson would do with actual Pynchon.

And P.T. Anderson got it right more often than not. Before watching Inherent Vice, my only real trepidation with the idea of an adaptation of Pynchon’s works was that Pynchon’s diction is much of the magic of his novels. He can get away with a certain amount of crazy plotting and random twists because his poetics are amazing. Lacking that, how it would translate to screen seemed uncertain, but Anderson, who adapted Pynchon’s novel, respects much of the author’s writing by using voiceover narration surprisingly well. And, Anderson chose one of Pynchon’s more linear narratives to adapt for the screen!

Doc Sportello is laying in bed one night when his ex-girlfriend, Shasta, shows up. She asks the private detective for help with a situation she is in; her married boyfriend, Mickey Wolfmann is in trouble. Wolfmann's wife, Sloane, and her lover are trying to run a scam and they want Shasta’s help. Sloane wants to commit Mickey to an assylum and run off with his wealth and he wants Shasta to assist him in the con, which has led Shasta to a strange moral quandary. Wolfmann’s name comes up prominently in Sportello’s first case the next day when Tariq Khalil (of the Black Guerilla movement) hires him to get money out of a member of the Aryan Brotherhood with whom he’d done business. Sportello heads out to where Channel View Estates are being built by Wolfmann’s company and there he discovers the only operating unit is a “massage” parlor.

But soon, Sportello’s problems multiply as his search for Charlock end with Sportello knocked out and awakening to a interrogation by his nemesis, LAPD detective “Bigfoot” Bjornsen about Charlock’s murder and Wolfmann and Shasta’s disappearance. While Sportello is apparently rescued by his lawyer (who is more a marine law lawyer than a criminal lawyer) and released upon his own reconnaissance, he soon finds himself in the crosshairs of the LAPD, FBI, and various criminal enterprises, including Golden Fang gangsters who own the boat by the same name. As drug-smuggling criminals, corrupt cops and swindlers manipulate Sportello, he is knocked around Gordita Beach as a tool for their various interests.

Inherent Vice, like the book, is filled with characters who are goofy and several who are only incidental to the “main” storyline being presented. Hope Harlington’s investigation into her husband’s “murder” and subsequent windfall deposit into her bank account is seemingly random until Coy Harlington turns up as a target of the Golden Fang. With so many characters, some get severely underused – like Dr. Blatnoyd, D.A. Kimball and Smilax (Doc’s lawyer) – and serve more to deliver plot exposition. Conversely, Sortilege might provide some beautiful narration in the form of Pynchon’s lines as voiceovers, but her part in the movie captures the time and place (1970’s California beach country) and the absurdities of it more than provide a real or viable character (her voiceovers about astrology are cringeworthy, but fit the character fine).

What Inherent Vice does well is showcase the talents of director P.T. Anderson and the actors he chose for the film. Inherent Vice might well prove that The Master was an exception to the rule of Anderson’s greatness as a writer-director. In adapting Pynchon’s novel, Anderson was able to take the essential elements of the story and bring to life a sense of Pynchon’s quirky characters. No matter how ridiculous the plot or characters get at various points in Inherent Vice, Anderson makes the film look great and he makes it all feel very much part of the same, distinct setting and narrative.

To make Inherent Vice work, the giant cast had to be fleshed out with amazing talents and fans of Anderson’s works like Magnolia (reviewed here!) and Boogie Nights (reviewed here!) will be unsurprised that he has once again assembled a memorable ensemble cast. Leading the cast are Joaquin Phoenix as Doc Sportello and Josh Brolin as Bigfoot. I’ve never been a fan of Phoenix’s performances – save in Her (reviewed here!) – but as the drug-addled detective Doc Sportello, Joaquin Phoenix nails it! Phoneix taps into the depth of his performance arsenal and comes up with completely credible body language and line deliveries for a befuddled, confused, tool of a protagonist and he makes Sportello work in ways I did not anticipate when the casting for Inherent Vice was first announced!

At the other end of the spectrum, Josh Brolin gives a solid performance as Bigfoot Bjornsen. Brolin’s magic is in playing the part entirely straightlaced; Bigfoot is a character who is a parody of a cop who does not realize he is a joke. Brolin balances the serious line-deliveries with utterly goofy physical comedy (Bjornsen has an oral fixation that Brolin brings to life perfectly!).

The rest of the cast, including Jena Malone, Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Toro, Martin Short, Reese Witherspoon, Sam Jaeger, Eric Roberts, and Katherine Waterston do a decent job of balancing expository backstory to make their characters pop with performances that show instead of tell who they are supposed to be. The result is a film that has moments of peril, but is dominated by a fun, weird, sensibility that one used to only look to the Coen Brothers for (on film); now, P.T. Anderson gives them a run for their money and Inherent Vice delivers an engaging experience for moviegoers!

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
The Seventh Son
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
Vice
American Sniper

8/10

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.
| | |

Not Bending The World As Much As We Think, Why Her Is The Best Film Of The Year!

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing plot, Interesting characters
The Bad: Somewhat oppressive tone
The Basics: Her is a smart, clever film that has a lonely man bonding with his smartphone’s operating system and developing real love for the artificial life form.


A few days ago, my wife and I celebrated our four and three quarter year anniversary of our marriage. Even though it was an obscure anniversary, we continue to give gifts to one another and she actually surprised me by getting me the Blu-Ray of Where The Wild Things Are (reviewed here!). I was the only person I knew who actually liked the movie and my wife got it for me to connect me to a youthful sensibility I sometimes lack. So, I was actually primed to take in Spike Jonze’s latest film, Her . . . and I know that I will not be the only person I know who loves this film. Her is smart, quirky, and deep, instantly reminiscent of Jonze’s Being John Malkovich in tone and weirdness.

Her is released as Oscarbait, but while the studios might be marketing it toward award season, there is a sense of wry observation and universal loneliness that would have made it the film of the year regardless of when it was released. While films like Gravity (reviewed here!) have been leaving audiences marveled for the spectacle they bring to the big screen, it has lacked something beyond the confines of the story it tells. Spike Jonze has never been limited in that way and Her is no exception. Her tells a story set in a slightly sideways view of the world, but resonates with genuine human emotions and a story that is far less quirky (and much more insightful) than one might think from its plot.

Theodore is a professional transcriber for BeautifulWrittenLetters.com where he spends his days handwriting affectionate letters for customers. He is going through a rough divorce, though Catherine has clearly moved on from him, and he is lonely. Outside work, he spends time with his friend Amy, who spends her free time playing an online game where she earns points for being a good mother in the virtual world. Theodore’s own outlet with the virtual world or artificial intelligences comes when he activates his new operating system for his smartphone. Samantha talks to Theodore and he finds in the responsive program a companion more than a technological tool.

As Theodore asks his phone questions and responds to Samantha’s observations, he starts to bond with Samantha the way he would with an actual person. Theodore begins to become emotionally entangled with Samantha and that eases his loneliness. But as Theodore develops the relationship, he is forced to wrestle with the feelings he is has for Amy, Catherine, Samantha, and, perhaps most importantly, himself.

Her had a familiar quality to it; the emotional distance and sense of connection coming through technological devices is a similar plot to this year’s A Perfect Men (reviewed here!). The sense of familiarity also resonates for anyone who saw and understood A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (reviewed here!); Samantha in Her is treated like a life form in some very real ways. Interestingly, the elements that seem familiar combine to create something that is remarkable fresh.

The thing is, Her seems audacious and original in its plotting and set-up, but Spike Jonze drives the movie with a character who is easy to empathize with and a tone that is universal (though hardly pleasant). Theodore seems to meet the stereotype of being a smart man who is socially or emotionally disconnected, with limited ability to express the depths of his feelings. While Jonze created yet another smart character who clearly feels, he is put on the spot to define his emotions and falls down. Her might use a technological conceit, but it explores a complicated series of emotions and has something to say about relationships that is seldom brought to the screen with such realism.

While there are moments that get bogged down in the oppressive tone inherent to loneliness, Her succeeds because it balances the loneliness with the excitement of the discovery that comes with a new relationship. While there is a somewhat bipolar nature to the plot, the overall cinematic experience is surprisingly enjoyable.

A lot of the credit for the success of Her goes to Joaquin Phoenix. While I have never been a fan of Phoenix’s works, in Her he performs with an incredible range of emotions that is uncommon for him. Phoenix plays the quiet loneliness of Theodore’s initial character exceptionally well, but it is when he transforms into a bright-eyed, eager man outside his home that Phoenix gives us something completely new. I cannot recall a time when I’ve seen Phoenix on screen smiling and portraying a truly vibrant human being.

In a similar fashion, Amy Adams’s role in Her is unlike others she has had. More than just appearing with disheveled hair, Adams uses her time on the screen to play a type of obsession she has not played in her other works (at least none I have ever seen).

Her has a touching human message and it is delivered expertly in a way that makes it a film bound to stand the tests of time.

For other works featuring Olivia Wilde, please check out my reviews of:
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
The Words
People Like Us
In Time
Butter
The Change-Up
Cowboys And Aliens
Tron: Legacy
The Next Three Days
Year One
House, M.D. - Season Four

9/10

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.
| | |

P.T. Anderson Loses It (And Me) With The Master!

The Good: Costumes, Cinematography
The Bad: Plot, Acting, Characters, Lack of spark
The Basics: The Master is P.T. Anderson’s cinematic low point.


I am a fan of P.T. Anderson’s works. In fact, I like the guy, too. I had the chance to meet him a few years back in Rochester, New York, when Boogie Nights and Punch-Drunk Love were inducted into the permanent collection at the George Eastman House. I know I was the biggest fan of P.T. Anderson’s works at the screening and Q&A session because I was the only person who asked a question (two, actually) that could not have been asked by simply watching any of P.T. Anderson’s films with the commentary tracks on (or any of the other bonus features). It was pretty cool to stump the director of a film by asking an insightful, unexpected question.

Living in Northern Michigan, there was nowhere local that was getting P.T. Anderson’s latest film, The Master. So, as the centerpiece to my birthday celebration, my wife and I drove 282.4 miles (round trip) to go downstate to one of the theaters that was playing The Master. All of this is to explain just how much I appreciate the works of P.T. Anderson and how much I was looking forward to The Master. Only when a reader understands that about me and understands that I have not at all changed my standards to review the film, can they understand the full impact and truth behind my analysis of the experience of seeing The Master in theaters:

The flavoring on the popcorn, a bacon cheddar sprinkle on flavoring, and the orange frozen drink that tasted exactly like a creamsicle, were the high points of the film experience.

Yes, as unfortunate as it is to say, P.T. Anderson managed to make his utter dud right after one of my other favorite directors, Kevin Smith, made his big dud. Red State (reviewed here!) was a real shift in Kevin Smith’s works and it made for an abrupt change in his works, isolating much of his fan base. The Master is a similarly abrupt and disturbingly bad work by P.T. Anderson. (Terry Gilliam’s next work had better not suck, lest I lose my faith in American filmmakers altogether!)

For fans of P.T. Anderson, The Master shows some incredible departures from P.T. Anderson’s style and expertise. Unlike his prior works, the film is noticeably lacking in an immediate musical impression (Anderson frequently uses music to enhance mood and establish character aspects and conflicts that are not immediately evident) and the silence that opens the film is continued through the awkward and consistently unpleasant characters and the aimless, plotless, story. The Master lacks the strong themes, articulate dialog, interesting characters, and all-around excellence in filmmaking that one expects from P.T. Anderson.

Freddie Quell is a veteran coming out of the second World War. Pretty much a psychopath who can’t keep a job and who drinks any liquid that he comes across – fluid from bombs, photographic chemicals, etc. – Quell is having trouble adjusting to post-war life. One night, he sneaks on a ship, the boat that Lancaster Dodd and his family are traveling on. Following his daughter’s wedding on the ship, Lancaster – known as The Master to most around him – and his wife Peggy reveal that Lancaster is working on his second book and he and his followers are doing research aboard the boat.

Quell falls in with the group, becoming a de facto enforcer against those who speak out against the teachings of the Master. Struggling to quit drinking and reign in his animal impulses, Freddie finds himself in conflict with the burgeoning philosophical group. As Lancaster Dodd releases his second book, his followers and Freddie find themselves in a state of perpetual conflict.

The Master includes Anderson’s regular Philip Seymour Hoffman and Hoffman seems lost amid Anderson’s uncharacteristically droll dialogue. Lancaster Dodd hardly speaks like a human being and the lack of poetics in the script make one feel like they are listening to a composer who suddenly lost all ability to hear music. Anderson’s language has previously had a music to it, but The Master is entirely tonedeaf.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell and the entire length of The Master all I saw was Sean Penn. Phoenix is performing Sean Penn in one of Penn’s eccentric roles and he’s doing a second-rate impression. Freddie Quell is twitchy and drunk, with an incestuous past and a pedophilic desire for a local girl he left year before. Phoenix sells the role only to the extent that he gets through the part, making one believe he is actually drinking toxic beverages. But for the most part, Joaquin Phoenix plays Sean Penn playing a twitchy jerk.

Amy Adams is similarly unimpressive as Peggy, Lancaster’s wife. Very early on in the film, she presents the character in such a way that makes it clear that she is the Master, the puppeteer behind the puppet that is Lancaster.

But that simple reversal does not make The Master any more intriguing or good. Instead, the most the film has going for it is one or two stray shots (the water behind the boat at the opening and middle of the film is very pretty) and the costuming which clearly establishes the 1950s exceptionally well. The rumor surrounding The Master is that Scientologists had problems with the film because of the cultlike nature of Dodd’s works and the devotion of his followers (many of which parallel Philip K. Dick’s creation of Scientology). While some Scientologists might take issue with the idea that the author, like Lancaster Dodd, just made things up as he went along, far more offensive (I would suspect) is how the movie is just plain bad. After all, it is one thing to have one’s religion, cult, or belief system lampooned, it is entirely another to have it play a mediocre role in a terrible film with underdeveloped characters, a lousy sense of conflict, an utter lack of visual or auditory poetry, and performances that only highlight the lack of a crisp script.

For other films by P.T. Anderson, please check out my reviews of:
Hard Eight
Boogie Nights
Magnolia
Punch-Drunk Love

2/10

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

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

Don Cheadle Sells Another Painful Expose On The Real World With Hotel Rwanda.

The Good: Excellent acting, pace, characters, ? DVD Extras
The Bad: Minor character development issues
The Basics: Don Cheadle performs another role where a man is surrounded by utter misery, in this case the genocide in Rwanda that most of the world let happen.


I've been on a Don Cheadle kick lately. I recently rewatched Boogie Nights (reviewed here!) and Crash (reviewed here!) and found his commentaries to be insightful and enjoyable. He's easily one of the more neglected great actors of our time and I suspect I'll actually make an effort to hunt down more of his works in the near future. Of course, it might be a few days. After all, Cheadle has a tendency to play characters who are caught in horrific personal or professional situations or dilemma's. I'm still reeling from watching the last film I hunted down because he was in it: Hotel Rwanda.

Set in the early 1990s, Paul Rusesabagina is managing the Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda when the U.N. peacekeeping force withdraws following the collapse of the peace treaty between the Hutu and the Tutsis. As the Hutu military sweeps through the neighborhoods slaughtering any Tutsis it can find, Paul finds himself sheltering Tutsi refugees within the classy hotel following the departure of all of the Europeans. Paul has a rather personal stake in his risky endeavor to save his neighbors; his wife is Tutsi, as are many of his family members.

As Paul is systematically abandoned by all of his allies in Rwanda, he finds himself bribing the local Hutu military leader to keep the hotel protected. Paul and his refugees know influential people outside Rwanda and they begin making telephone calls to leaders in other - primarily European - nations in the desperate attempt to save their own lives. When the U.N. peacekeepers return to extract those who have been granted visas to escape the genocide, one of Paul's workers contacts the Hutu militias to have them slain.

Hotel Rwanda is an exceptionally difficult film to watch. When I finished watching it, one of my friends called and asked me what I thought of the film. Still wiping away tears - literally - I said, "I've never been so ashamed of being American as when I was watching that film." Given the last few years in American History, that's saying quite a bit. But after two hours of watching Rwandan's being slaughtered - cinematically - and knowing how closely it was based on reality while the only sound from the United States is an attempt to split hairs on the difference between "genocide" and "acts of genocide" as a reason to not intervene. It's pretty shameful.

While the United States is physically absent from Hotel Rwanda, Belgium and Canadians in the U.N. Peacekeeping forces do what they can to save the lives that no one else will. Nick Nolte plays Colonel Oliver, who explains the lack of involvement from the rest of the world - especially America - as an issue of color. Sadly, his words ring the most true in the film and it's troubling to watch.

In short, it's not entertaining. Arguably, this is not supposed to be an entertaining film, it is supposed to shock and horrify the viewer. It is intended to unsettle us and it works admirably. But one immediately wonders why director Terry George opted for a drama with fictional license as opposed to a documentary. Hotel Rwanda has a musical score and recognizable actors that express the message fine, but also insinuate that there is some entertainment value to watching the genocide occur. Unlike other recent films exploring brutality in Africa, like Blood Diamond, this does not tread so close to the sensationalist. As it is, it exists in an uncomfortable buffer zone between capturing the whole truth and telling a story that is very personal and horrific.

And it certainly succeeds at being horrific; the refugees hiding out in the Hotel are insulted, menaced and brought out at gun point several times in the course of the film and after an hour of witnessing such brutality - or more often, the effects of it left over in the streets outside the hotel - the audience begins to feel they are being dragged out every time the protagonists are. It's unsettling and by the end of the film, the viewer is likely to be disheartened.

Yes, after all the bloodshed, we do not expect the catharsis of anything remotely near a happy ending. For citizens in the United States, maybe that's a good thing. Our complacency makes us culpable. Hotel Rwanda reminds the viewers that we have a stated moral imperative to never allow genocide to happen again. But hey, in Rwanda, they're black, so it's not so bad. It's been six hours since I watched the film and my stomach is still tight. This is a very effective film and it's likely to horrify the nerve dulled population.

Who am I kidding? Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda, nightly news footage of rendition, torture and warfare in Iraq, bombings and walls in Israel and Palestine, school shootings, none of this touches the American psyche anymore. Certainly, we want it to. But when it comes time to act, we stir our t.v. dinners, we send a check to the ACLU and we pluck our hangnails. The citizens of the United States, en masse, may sympathize, might want to empathize, but they are not willing to risk the political instability of removing from power any and all people who are complaint in acts of war, genocide or indifference against either or both. Using films like Hotel Rwanda as some perverse form of entertainment, we dull our population until the next major tragedy in American history and then we let ourselves be manipulated in our fear into whatever whomever appears strongest suggests.

It's enough to disgust one for being American.

Where's the hope, then? What's the purpose of the film that makes it essential to see? It is only through works like this where the audience is forced to be made uncomfortable that there is any hope at all. When none of the population is unsettled, the soul of the nation is truly dead. We might be close, but we're not there yet. The purpose of watching Hotel Rwanda is to act as a witness and renew ourselves to the concept behind the simple words "Never Again." It's time we say it with conviction and mean it; preparing to back it up with more than just bumper stickers.

And Terry George's Hotel Rwanda does what it intends to well. A large chunk of the kudos must go to Don Cheadle. Cheadle humanizes the struggle from his opening moments of complete disbelief in the situation. He embodies the voices of reason, that peace will work, that the world will not stand by for such slaughter, that international medical workers have some safety to travel throughout the streets, and that Paul can actually save those within the hotel. Cheadle plays a man of privilege waking up to a world of barbarism and he plays the transitions in Paul's character masterfully while presenting throughout the sense that this is the same man.

Cheadle's acting is joined by decent performances by Nick Nolte (Colonel Oliver) and Sophie Okonedo (Paul's wife Tatiana). But others are either not so gifted as Cheadle or misdirected by George. Most notably, is the traitorous hotel worker who betrays Paul and the refugees. Prior to his betrayal, he and Paul make a supply run only to find themselves driving over the bodies of the fallen and finding their way blocked by hundreds more corpses. In those scenes, there appears to be a transformation in the character, yet it's almost the next scene where he turns on Paul, making it seem like either the actor was misdirected, a poor actor or intended to manipulate the viewer. The last option would be most cheap and the film seems quite above that.

I'll be honest; usually when I review DVDs, I try to be thorough and watch all the bonus features and listen to the commentaries. I couldn't do that this time. I simply could not bring myself to watch the film again with the commentary track on, nor to go through the featurettes chronicling the real genocide in Rwanda. They are there, the extras seem to largely bring reality to the viewer's mind, but after two hours of this I just couldn't do that to myself.

As a simple consumer, I have that option. The victims of Rwandan genocide, of course, did not.

For other works with Joaquin Phoenix, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Walk The Line
Signs
Gladiator
U Turn

9/10

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

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

| | |

The Turnaround on U Turn, Oliver Stone's Directing School Art Project

The Good: Some decent acting, Moments of character/intrigue
The Bad: Stone's directoral toying, Terrible characters, Feels long
The Basics: With violent, mean and unredeemably bad characters, U Turn tells a story of a man trapped in a backwater town that Oliver Stone sloppily creates.


When I was in college, possibly when I saw The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) in the theater, I saw a preview for Oliver Stone's U Turn. Ever since then, it has been on my list to see and I was thrilled to find it on DVD (albeit a no-frills version) and I was excited to sit down and watch this movie. If anything, I was biased toward it from the previews I barely remembered. As the movie stretched on and on, the anticipation faded and the reality sunk in; there's a reason U Turn is almost never mentioned with Stone's classic works JFK and Natural Born Killers.

Bobby Cooper is driving through Arizona en route to paying off a gambling debt that has already cost him two fingers when the radiator tube in his car's engine ruptures and he is forced to get it repaired. In the desert, he finds the small town of Superior and a crazy hick mechanic named Darrell. While Darrell is repairing Bobby's car, he goes into the town where he encounters Grace. Grace is nice enough, recognizes his flirting and brings him back to her house. Bobby is attacked by her husband, Jake, who then approaches Bobby with a proposition; he'll give him money to kill Grace, a proposition Bobby rejects. Unfortunately for Bobby, he's at the site of a stick-up and the money he's carrying to pay off his debts gets shot up by a store owner who kills the robbers. As Bobby is tossed between Darrell and a psychopath named TNT, attracted to Grace and avoiding the law in the form of Sheriff Potter, he finds himself desperate to get out of Superior and in need of money he does not have.

U Turn has a number of elements that seem to set it up for greatness. It has a respected director (Oliver Stone), it has a decent cast that includes Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Jennifer Lopez (remember when she was primarily an actress?), and Billy Bob Thornton. It has characters that are, at the very least, intriguing. It even has some truly brilliant lines. The problem is, almost none of them all come together at the same time.

Possibly the best moment - and this is in the trailer, so it's not revealing anything too big - is when Bobby, played perfectly in the scene by Sean Penn, turns to Darrell - played with gruesome perversity by Billy Bob Thornton - and with uncharacteristic wit says, "Forty thousand people die each day, how come you're not one of them?" Now that's an insult! Penn delivers the line well, to the right character at the right moment. It's a nice moment of cinematic quality that is not necessarily indicative of the rest of the film.

Bobby owes people money and they've lopped off some of his fingers so from the moment Bobby comes into the picture, the viewer knows we're not dealing with the morally upstanding citizens of the world. Writer John Ridley does not keep the viewer waiting long, with Darrell being the first character the very impatient Bobby encounters. Whatever sympathy we have for Darrell who is immediately insulted by Bobby, fades with his shifty ways and underlying meanness (to say nothing of his rotted smile).

In short, U Turn features a cast of almost entirely unlikable characters. Superior, Arizona is populated by rogues, killers and psychopaths who bully, bribe and sex their ways through life. And it gets old pretty quick. Unlike a movie like Payback (reviewed here!) where the viewer roots for the antihero because they have been, in some way, wronged and has some redeeming quality to them, U Turn has no such luck.

Throughout this movie, characters tell Bobby that they see within him the killer instinct, the ability to kill, something he claims he has never done before arriving at Superior. The thing is, whether they see it or not, Bobby's sense of desperation leads him to exercise what he's never seen within him before. It's that kind of weak characterization where there's no integrity that turns the viewer off to empathizing with him. Instead, the viewer shrugs and says, "Don't care what's coming to him now."

Even the abused Grace has moments where the viewer thinks her character might be redeemable. Alas, Ridley and director Oliver Stone mortgage that by making Grace even more shifty than her abusive husband Jake. To his credit, Stone chose well to cast Jennifer Lopez as Grace and Nick Nolte as Jake. Nolte is appropriately menacing as Jake and almost every moment he's on screen makes the viewer's skin crawl. Similarly, Powers Boothe is decent as Sheriff Potter.

What's unredeemable is Stone's directing. Stone plays with the camera like a film school student, cheapening almost every vital moment of the film by using camera techniques. A good (or great) director figures out how to use the medium to effectively tell the story they want. While I applaud experimentation, Stone's camera experiments fail to illuminate the story or more importantly the characters in U Turn. Instead, the abrupt clips are distracting, sloppy and annoying.

Whatever potential the rogues gallery of U Turn had of surviving the unlikability of the characters and the somewhat predictable (or standard) criminal underworld plot is mortgaged by Stone's direction which sinks this film out of being watchable. At least now, it's off my list. If it's on yours, you might want to take it off before you, too, are disappointed.

For other works by Oliver Stone, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Platoon
Wall Street
W.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

4/10

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

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

Walk The Line To A Captivating Biography

The Good: Excellent acting, Good character development, Strong pacing/plot, Good musical direction
The Bad: Resolution is not so much a resolution but an end
The Basics: With exceptional acting and a compelling dramatic story to tell, Walk The Line follows the career, personal life, and awkward romance of one of America's musical icons.


I'm not a country music fan, but when I listen to country and enjoy it, it is almost exclusively classic country. Johnny Cash is one of the artists I've listened to and enjoyed . Walk The Line is the recent biography of Johnny Cash charting his life and musicmaking with special emphasis on his relationship with June Carter.

John Cash, as a young boy, loses his brother in an accident with an industrial saw. His father, the emotionally distant Ray Cash, vocally asks god why the divine didn't take John instead. John grows up, joins the Air Force and goes to Germany, returns home and starts a family and he begins to follow his dream of recording music. When Cash begins to record his own, deeply personal songs, his career takes off and he begins a rocky career that parallels June Carter, a beautiful young country singer/comedian who runs in the same circles as Cash. As unresolved issues from Johnny's past drive him to despair, drugs and infidelity, his career takes turns unpleasant and real.

Walk The Line sells Johnny Cash as a poor man who pulled himself up and succeeded by being a true and individual artist. In fact, most of his professional complications come when he forsakes his individuality - he starts doing drugs with rock stars when Elvis and his people get him into them. Cash's infidelity spins out of that and it's not something heavily explored in this film.

What is a driving force throughout the movie is Johnny's attempts to get his father to recognize him and his talent. Walk The Line explores Johnny's deep-seated inferiority complex because his father Ray is withholding of even basic love and respect. It makes for a compelling character study and the scenes between Ray and Johnny are great on a character and cinematic level.

Similarly, Walk The Line is essentially the love story of Johnny and June Carter. That's misleading; it's the backstory to their love story. With something like a biography of two famous people like Johnny and June it is not ruining the surprise to indicate that they fall in love. However, Walk The Line does not deal with the two in love so much as it builds up to it.

Then the movie ends. The movie ending on the high note of the moment Johnny and June actually fall for one another completely is acceptable and it's a fine point to end. Far more problematic is the fact that there is no resolution in the Ray/Johnny plot/character conflict. Throughout the movie, Johnny's life takes drastic turns based on stimulus from his father - usually the withholding of acknowledgment that Johnny's life has any intrinsic value - and it is disturbing that the viewer is not granted the chance to see or learn how that circumstance resolved itself.

Robert Patrick, perhaps best known for Terminator 2: Judgment Day (reviewed here!) or the latter seasons of The X-Files, plays Ray Cash. Wow. Robert Patrick is one of those actors who exploded on the scene (T2) then disappeared from the mainstream attention for a long time and worked his way back into something impressive. The years of work have paid off; Patrick is brilliant as Ray, eliciting shivers from viewers for his icy portrayal of the wounded patriarch. Patrick's cold stare accents his tight-lipped delivery of lines in a compelling fashion that makes him rule every scene he is in.

Patrick plays brilliantly off lead Joaquin Phoenix. Phoenix takes on the swagger, the affect of Johnny Cash so perfectly that when I watched documentary footage of Cash after viewing Walk The Line, I was impressed by the similarities. Phoenix is given the task, not so much of creating a character but, of replicating an established personality and making him understandable and as close to universally liked as possible. He succeeds admirably. And he does a great job with the vocals throughout Walk The Line, recreating the sound of Johnny Cash. That's essential to convincing the audience of his worth.

It is Reese Witherspoon who rules Walk The Line, though. Who would have guessed that the star of Legally Blonde (reviewed here!) could righteously portray such a strong and direct celebrity?! Witherspoon deserved every acting award she received for this role. She is charming when she presents Carter's on-stage persona, deep in the private moments in scenes she shares quietly with Phoenix and expressive throughout. I've never seen Witherspoon so graceful and controlled in a film before, but her discipline pays off and she makes a faithful portrayal of June Carter.

Walk The Line has been wrongly billed as a musical. It is not. There is a heavy emphasis on music in this movie, but characters do not break into song to express feelings they are not otherwise feeling, exposit plot or move the story along. This is a biography and a drama and it is likely to be enjoyed by anyone who likes a good character-driven story. After seeing Walk The Line, it's hard to imagine anyone else will recreate a Cash/Carter story again soon; the bar is set so high.

For other biography films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Life Of Emile Zola
Elizabeth
Capote

8/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed.

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

Signs Pointing Away From Another Viewing!

The Good: Moments of acting
The Bad: Poor direction, Ridiculous characters, Disappointing plot, Utter lack of mood
The Basics: A disappointing science fiction piece that wants to be a drama and suspense, Signs instead results in being silly and boring.


Saturday night, I was given the choice of which DVD my friends and I were going to watch and I opted against The Emperor's New Clothes and Bloodwork and instead chose Signs. Upon sitting through Signs, I feel I should have chosen Ian Holm's The Emperor's New Clothes.

In this disappointing film, former priest Graham Hess, a family man who is harassed by a local yahoo, finds a strange phenomenon in his corn field. Several stalks of corn are bent in an intriguing manner that - from above - is clearly a sign meant to be seen from above. As Hess works on holding his family together, the world is plagued by hundreds of similar crop phenomenon which is soon followed by alien ships which soon come to tear humanity apart.

Some want to praise M. Night Shyamalan for creating a film that asks ethical questions while making the viewer wonder what is truly going on. In actuality, those people are overstating this film; it is essentially the same science fiction standard that has existed since the 1950s when we had War Of The Worlds and other similar films. The problem here is that there is no similar element of fear or uniqueness.

Instead, the only element that is different is that Graham Hess is a former priest and he has had a six month ethical dilemma since his wife died somewhat violently. Only viewers who want to suspend their disbelief completely will find this compelling. Hess, as written and portrayed, is one of the least accurate or compelling religious figures ever brought to the screen. Allow me to explain.

Hess has fallen out of the Church since his wife died. It sounds like a good idea, save that modern priests are compelled, as part of the education of a priest, to do a tour in a medical facility. Thus, ALL priests encounter death as a matter of professional training. So, his wife dying, even with the seemingly random way it occurs, should not be enough to shake this man's faith so fundamentally.

Add to that, this man is supposed to be a priest. Why then does he willingly and willfully chop off the fingers of one of the aliens? It's not in self-defense, as there is a solid door between the two at the time. Add to that, given the opportunity to attempt to deal with the extraterrestrial invaders peacefully, he orders his brother to bash the creature's head in.

These problems are indicative of the lack of sense that happens as a matter of course in Signs. And we're not talking minor problems. In a key flashback scene where Hess is told he has a few minutes left with his wife before she certainly dies, he WALKS over to her, as opposed to RUNNING like any normal, loving, compassionate husband.

Similar lacks of simple obvious intelligence happens at the very end. When someone discovers what will turn the alien invaders, the radio does not say what it was. Considering how important a detail it is, it's unrealistic that it would be omitted. Moreover, the rather unoriginal nemesis of the aliens (see Alien Nation, for example) makes their choice of attacking Earth flat out idiotic. Basically, the alien invasion in Signs is about as sensible as us launching an attack on Jupiter.

Beyond the utter impractical nature of the film, the characters are entirely unrealistic and unlikable. Outside the police officer, Paski, none actually captivate us and make us believe they are real. Take Graham Hess's brother, Merrill. While on the surface it seems nice that he would come to live with his brother following his sister-in-law's death, it makes little sense because it does not seem apparent that he DOES anything there, nor that he left anything behind. So, it feels too convenient that he is there and it feels inorganic.

Graham Hess's children, Morgan and Bo, are similarly uninspired. All aspects of their character, like Morgan's asthma and Bo's drinking of water, serve only to be a part of the plot and do not seem to have any identity outside furthering the plot.

On the acting front, no one shines here. Mel Gibson seems unimpressive as Graham, adding nothing to the role and not making him have any presence. Similarly, Joaquin Phoenix could have been replaced by any muscular man in a tight t-shirt. The best acting here comes from Cherry Jones as Officer Paski, though, to be fair, Rory Caulkin holds his own as Morgan. The problem is, Morgan is used almost entirely to present exposition for forwarding the plot.

Finally, Signs fails because is fails to capture a suspenseful mood and it is desperately trying. M. Night Shyamalan milks scenes far beyond when they are interesting in an attempt to create suspense, by holding shots too long, keeping the aliens quick and blurry and similar cheap techniques.

This is essentially a bad 1950s style alien invasion story that fails to be interesting or suspenseful because it is too glaringly obviously trying to be something more than it is. Ideal for a night when you're with your friends and you want to sit around tearing a film to pieces for its inane content. If they do a Mystery Science Theater 3000 of this flick, I might go see it. Otherwise, I'll just do my own if I am ever subjected to this again.

For other alien invasion works, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
Invasion
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon

2/10

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

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

| | |

Once Again, I Subject Myself To Gladiator: No Better The Second (Or Third) Time!

The Good: Good DVD bonus features, Moments of style
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Mediocre acting, Soundtrack is overbearing at times
The Basics: A disappointing Best Picture winner, Gladiator is violence and style with very stiff substance.


I have, to be honest, been dreading this review for quite some time. Back when I first started writing reviews, I wrote a review of Gladiator and it was pretty terrible. A few years ago, I was cleaning out my reviews that I didn’t think were worth updating and I deleted my poorly written take on the epic film I loathed. But when I began my Best Picture Project (click here to visit that!) I came to realize that part of viewing and reviewing every film that has won the Best Picture Oscar meant I would have to go back and rewatch Gladiator as I did not remember it well enough to simply review it. Sadly, this finally happened for me last night and I realized something important. Sometimes, I get a review right the first time and Gladiator IS the overrated film I thought it was the first time around. And yes, I’m sour that it won Best Picture and that I had to suffer through it again. I suppose I’m also sour that it has given rise to Russell Crowe, whom I find to be a mediocre – at best – actor.

Gladiator is a film I also have problems with on a sociological level and it follows a trend that I noted in my review of Apocalypto. The basic concept is as we (audiences now in the 21rst Century) watch films illustrating the decline of other great civilizations as a form of entertainment, we are simply reliving history. Rome, arguably, declined in part because of its decadence and the way it kept the masses enthralled with bread and circuses (which is illustrated well in Gladiator). By watching Gladiator with its extreme gore and violence, as a form of entertainment, we are simply replacing the real gladiatorial contests with cinematic ones. The net effect is the same. So long as we have enough cash for a movie or c.d. every once in a while the Powers That Be keep us docile and pliable. For me, though, Gladiator is nowhere near entertaining enough to achieve those goals.

A general in the Roman army, Maximus helps lead Rome to victory in Germania in the early A.D. centuries. Having won for Emperor and Empire, Maximus looks forward to returning home to his farm and having a chance at a normal, non-combative life. The Emperor Marcus Aurelius prepares to give Maximus his freedom from the Army, but is killed by his ambitious son, Commodus. Commodus has Maximus’s family killed and Maximus is captured by Roman slavers after finding his home destroyed. Bought by Proximo, Maximus soon finds himself compelled to fight in Rome’s gladiatorial contests and despite his desire to not fight and to join his family in death, he begins to fight in earnest.

Entering the ring, Maximus returns to the mindset of a general and he organizes the thralls to survive a historic recreation of a battle which Rome won (with the gladiators playing the losing side). Thwarting the stronger and better-armored Roman gladiators, Maximus (known in the ring as The Spaniard) gains instant popularity. However, when his old adversary Commodus realizes who he is, the political machinations surrounding Maximus, the fate of the Senate and the whole future of the Republic come into question with the gladiator as the linchpin of many people’s plans for supremacy.

Throughout Gladiator, there are alternating scenes of extreme violence and boring, creepiness. As Maximus moodily rises to popularity within the arena, outside the politicians squabble and while this breaks up the monotony of excessive gore quite nicely, it is hardly engaging. This is probably because most of the non-violent scenes feature Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus. Perhaps I’m in the minority here, but I’ve pretty much had my fill of creepy, incestuous crazy despots and I don’t tend to enjoy watching them in movies. Add to that, Phoenix’s Commodus is so monolithically bad that there is little worth watching from him. Phoenix plays the role with a steely gaze that is penetrating, but outside the lines and obvious way Commodus looks at his sister, there is nothing in the performance that sells the villainy of the character. Instead, Phoenix telegraphs his performance by being stiff and awkwardly emotional; only those who have never seen a film with a villain seizing power will be surprised when Commodus kills his father.

But Phoenix is not the only actor whose performance is telegraphed. The surprise of a lighter moment where one of Maximus’s gladiator friends plays a practical joke with some stew is ruined in part because the performer hams it up a bit too much. As well, the female lead, Connie Nielsen, is particularly stiff as Lucilla. Even though she plays a strong female character in a very uncomfortable situation, she is stiff and it is hard to empathize with her, despite the horror of her particular struggle. It lessens her character when one considers she never makes a stab for the throne herself, instead relying on the menfolk to work the machinations around her. Nielsen, though, seems to go along with her character’s survival instinct without infusing anything special into it. As a result, her scenes have a similar passionless quality as virtually every moment Russell Crowe stabs at an opponent.

I recall the first time I saw Gladiator, I was particularly offended (in my sensibilities) by the CG tiger, which was fairly sloppy as it was lit from all angles (as opposed to from above where the sun is shining down on it). While I noticed this again on this viewing, I did not find it quite as annoying or distracting as I once did. Still, it is worth noting that the special effects in this film are hardly flawless. In fact, at points, the soundtrack even becomes overbearing and that, too, is problematic.

But the real problem with Gladiator is in the principle character. Maximus is only marginally interesting and his failure to simply give up and die is drawn out with little real explanation or sense that the struggle is going somewhere. Instead, Maximus persists and the viewer watches and his fate is hardly one the audience becomes emotionally invested in. This is probably because he is a pawn at best and Maximus never truly rises to his own occasion, so his story is merely a drawn-out slaughter that becomes tiresome and uncomfortably gory.

Beyond that, the gripe with Russell Crowe holds as well. Maximus is not much of a talking role and Crowe has the appropriately brutish attitude to make the fight scenes work. What he doesn’t have is the on-screen charisma to make it believable that all of the Roman politicians, most notably Derek Jacobi’s Gracchus, would invest so heavily in him. Instead, he plays a brute and he does it with less charisma than others who have taken on similar roles in recent years. He slashes, he ducks, he looks determined, but when given lines, he delivers them quietly with a monotony that is dull and holds up poorly over multiple viewings.

On DVD, Gladiator is packed with bonus features. In addition to nine deleted scenes and a montage which do nothing to improve the overall film, there are featurettes that are fairly thorough. In addition to production journals and the film’s theatrical trailer, Gladiator fans get some decent still images, but it’s still not enough to redeem the source material.

Ultimately, Gladiator is a violent movie that puts the viewer in the same place as the Roman citizens, getting numbed by watching a man slash his way through people for enjoyment while others make the real decisions. Not the best film of that year or, truly, any since.

For other films with a lot of violence, please check out my reviews of:
Watchmen
Repo Men
Gamer

3.5/10

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

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