Ben Affleck Becomes The Accountant And Makes An Engaging Crime Thriller!

The Good: Impressive acting, Good balance between action and intelligent storytelling, Good character study
The Bad: Light on character development for supporting characters, Director telegraphs the villain
The Basics: The Accountant is a well-developed crime thriller that has law enforcement and assassins on the trail of a forensic accountant who works for the world's most dangerous clients.


There are very few movies that get me intrigued enough to watch them based upon the previews, but during one of the recent awards shows, there were previews for The Accountant that actually hooked me. The Accountant is a Ben Affleck crime thriller that plays into the current obsession in popular culture with presenting characters who have conditions like autism.

Following a trail of bodies into a crime scene, The Accountant flashes back to 1989 an a neuroscience laboratory, where Christian Wolff is diagnosed as having a disorder relating to his sensory sensitivity. His parents are resistant to leaving him with the doctor there, but when he freaks out over being unable to finish a puzzle because it is missing a single piece, they capitulate. Wolff grows up to be an accountant, where he helps poor people with getting the most back on their taxes. At the Treasury Department, Ray King brings in Marybeth Medina to extort her do become an agent for the Treasury Department working under him. Wolff is a forensic accountant who has worked for a slew of shady organizations around the world to uncook the books and discover who has stolen millions from those organizations.

Wolff is hired by Living Robotics, Lamar Black's company, when a junior staff member uncovers an irregularity in the books. Wolff arrives at Living Robotics where he is teamed with Dana Cummings, who noticed the money was missing. In a single night, Wolff discovers a leak at Living Robotics of more than sixty million dollars. While Wolff is figuring out who is embezzling at Living Robotics, Brax is assassinating his way through corporate criminals, including the CFO of Living Robotics. Wolff is upset when he is paid off before actually finishing the job at Living Robotics. When assassins come after Christian and Dana, Wolff prepares to liquidate his entire life and disappear, but he goes to save Dana first. In saving Cummings, Wolff finds himself embroiled in the mystery of who stole the $61 million and was returning it to Living Robotics.

Packed with flashbacks, The Accountant tells the story of Christian Wolff by illustrating his rough childhood to show how he came to be a forensic accountant. Wolff's childhood was complicated by a military father and a mother who could not handle the stress of raising Christian after she learned how difficult his disorder would make life. After his mother left, Christian ended up in prison, where he was mentored by Francis Silverberg in how to survive in the black market. Between that and his proficiency in long-range target shooting, Christian Wolff's character is very well-established before much of the film's action begins.

Playing opposite Wolff's narrative is Marybeth Medina's search for Wolff, during which she learns of the checkered aspects of his past, including a killing spree he went on in New York City where he took out key members of a crime family. Medina is hunting for a man believed to be an enemy of the state who essentially aided terrorists, as part of King's desire to end his career in a blaze of glory.

The Accountant affords Ben Affleck a chance to play a very different style of character than he usually does. While Christian Wolff does not give him the chance to go very far outside his wheelhouse, Affleck is able to show off a lot of his ability to perform in a nuanced way in The Accountant. Affleck manages to present the socially-awkward, sensory-challenged Christian Wolff as well-rounded, not stiff. Affleck manages to portray Wolff as socially-awkward, but not stiff. Affleck gives a measured, subtle performance unlike many of his other roles.

The hunt for Wolff by Medina does not give Cynthia Addai-Robinson a lot of a chance to perform. Medina reacts to a lot of exposition that uncovers who Wolff is and what he suffers from. Addai-Robinson is good at emoting for the reaction shots, but Medina's characterization is very quickly established and - because she is being extorted - does not truly grow or develop.

Director Gavin O'Connor weaves together an engaging narrative, though he does so in a way that telegraphs the primary antagonists almost immediately. While J.K. Simmons portrays Ray King as an initial adversary for Wolff, the performances of two others reveals something darker in their characters. Simmons gets through the exposition that reveals his character's backstory in an engaging way, but O'Connor keeps the film's actual antagonists as surprisingly monolithic.

The Accountant features one of the all-time best on-screen assassins as Christian Wolff smartly double taps in all of his close-range kills and his ability to focus in environments that would overload other people's senses make for a plausible killer who is able to perform in the dark, smoke, and loud environments. The Accountant might not have much in the way of deeper themes or compelling reversals, but it is solidly entertaining and general well-made!

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Oasis: Supersonic
My Blind Brother
Cardboard Boxer
The Whole Truth

7/10

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.
| | |

Hardly An Epic, Sadly Unincredible, Why Interstellar Is Not All It Should Have Been. . .

The Good: Decent plot, Adequate acting, Moments of character, Metaphysics
The Bad: Not stellar on the character or performance fronts, Huge detail problem that is never addressed
The Basics: (Mostly) Well-constructed, Interstellar is still deeply unsatisfying.


Coming into Oscar Pandering Season, indeed for most of the year, it is easy to say that the film I was most anticipating was Interstellar. I have largely enjoyed the works of Christopher Nolan and I am a fan of Anne Hathaway. Eager for her biggest film since Les Miserables (reviewed here!), I spent the day on a splurge: I went downstate to see Anne Hathaway in IMAX. I was excited to spend the day out and splurge seeing Interstellar in IMAX [Rant #1 – Hey, you, jackasses at the Warner Brothers advertising department! If you’re going to make the claim that “This film will be released two days early in IMAX” live up to your promise! There were no IMAX showings of Interstellar in Michigan on November 5, but your commercials sure made it here! Grumble!]. I otherwise went into Interstellar virtually blind; I managed to avoid spoilers, reviews and previews.  So, having made a day of it . . .

. . . it is hard to discuss my level of disappointment now. I know the moment the film was done that I enjoyed it more than I did Gravity (reviewed here!). But, when I went to assign a number rating on Interstellar, I had to go back to my literal, strict, formula for rating and Gravity, it turns out has a half point on Interstellar by the numbers! My wife asked me before if it was the worst Christopher Nolan film and I said, “No,” thinking that I liked Interstellar more than The Prestige (reviewed here!). While this might be an implicit argument that sometimes films get rated higher based on a first viewing (The Dark Knight Rises, I am most certainly looking at you!), my gut tells me that Interstellar is suffering in the opposite direction . . . and yet . . . and yet. There is much to recommend Interstellar, but there are some gaping holes in the science and science fiction of the film. As a result, I have decided that the best way for me to approach reviewing Interstellar is with a fractured review; the top half will have the spoiler-free critique (Jessica Chastain had a much bigger role than Anne Hathaway, the visual effects were not actually all that spectacular, etc.) and then a more thorough analysis of the problems with Interstellar (which is impossible to do without some spoilers). There will be a clear delineation.

Set in a nebulous future where blight has killed off many major crops and made farmers more important to Earth than engineers and astronauts (not to mention military powers), Cooper is a farmer who was once, briefly, a pilot. Living in the new dust bowl, Cooper farms corn and raises his son – Tom - and daughter, Murph, because humanity has turned so against science and medicine that MRIs no longer exist to find things like cancerous tumors in time to save the life of Cooper’s wife. Murph is a bit of a troublemaker at school and refuses to believe things like the Apollo missions were just government productions devised to bleed the Soviet Union financially dry and she is convinced she has a ghost in her room because books keep falling down. After a particularly violent dust storm floods Murph’s room with dust and dirt, Cooper becomes convinced that there is something going on in Murph’s room; the dust lands along specific lines of gravity and from those lines, Cooper discerns a simple binary message. Something is giving Cooper and Murph coordinates and Cooper (unwittingly taking Murph with him) makes a journey to find what is at those coordinates.

What they find is an old NORAD facility, which has been secretly used by NASA, which has existed in secret long after the public thought it was gone. Cooper meets Amelia Brand, who shows him the truth: in the years to come, the Blight will adapt to corn and the Earth will be unable to feeds its people and NASA is working on an ambitious project to evacuate the population or repopulate a distant planet with humans using embryonic genetic material. Cooper is reunited with Dr. Brand, whom he knew from his past days in NASA, and he meets Doyle and Romilly, along with the robots TARS and CASE, who are intended to go on a mission through a wormhole that appeared 48 years prior out near Saturn. Cooper learness that their mission would be the second endeavor through the wormhole; a decade ago, the Lazarus Project under Dr. Edmund went through the wormhole and sent twelve pods out to nearby planets to try to find a habitable one. Despite Murph being furious at Cooper for going, Cooper joins the mission as the pilot, leaving behind a watch for Murph and hoping to return by the time she is his age.

The crew of the Endurance goes to sleep for two years and wakes up when the ship reaches Saturn and the wormhole there. Cooper pilots the Endurance through the wormhole – in which Brand has a close encounter of sorts – and arriving near the black hole (Gargantua) in a far away galaxy, the crew discovers that three of the twelve probes give them reason to hope. The crew heads right away to Miller’s planet, where the orbit of the planet has such a relativistic distortion that an hour on the planet is equivalent to seven years outside the distortion field! Trying to track down Miller turns disastrous, though; her planet is all-water and while the lander finds her wreckage, they lose Doyle and are delayed while the engines drain of water. Returning to space, Brand and Cooper learn from Romilly that twenty-two years have passed. While he has managed to learn all he can about gravity from the nearby black hole, the years have drained most of the Endurance’s power and now the Endurance has only enough fuel to investigate one of the two remaining close planets. When Cooper exposes Brand’s determination to go to Edmund’s planet as a result of her love for him, he makes the choice to take the ship to Mann’s planet. During that time, Cooper finally starts getting messages from Murph, who has begun working with Dr. Brand on the project to get a worldship off the ground. As the years go by, Murph struggles to keep hope up for saving humanity. Hope is in short supply, though, when Dr. Mann’s optimistic appraisal of the planet he has been marooned on for decades turns out to be way too good to be true and Dr. Brand delivers a deathbed confession to Murph that causes her to question the whole nature of the mission her father is on.

Throughout Interstellar, the lingering question is who They are. They are the people who sent Murph and Cooper a message in the dust by manipulating gravity, They are the ones who created the artificial wormhole and other gravity anomalies, They seem to want humanity to survive, but They do not communicate directly with humanity. Unfortunately, the narrative technique of Interstellar makes this answer troublingly obvious – more about that in the spoilerific section below the rating! For no particular reason that makes much sense, Interstellar opens with elderly people discussing their childhood in the time period that the film begins in. While this is wonderful for creating a sense of time and place – they put plates on the table flipped over because of all the dust – it telegraphs the largest possible arc of the movie in a disappointing way. From almost the first frames of Interstellar, writers Jonathan and Christopher Nolan seem to be obsessed with saying, “Don’t worry, humanity will survive!”

Ultimately, though, that is at the root of the problems with Interstellar; the film tries to make mysteries and then completely lets down the audience with the payoffs to them. The film is riddled with inconsistencies much larger than Murph’s disappearing necklace between a p.o.v. shot change; the audience is meant to feel a sense of peril, but there is no larger sense of jeopardy because we already know humanity lives on. Similarly, Cooper opens the film as a scientist of such strength and conviction that it gave me hope that should Matthew McConaughey win any awards for his portrayal of Cooper in Interstellar, he could not reasonably waste time thanking the Divine in his acceptance speech. But for all of the rigid science of Cooper’s views, much of Interstellar is about faith. Anne Hathaway’s Amelia has her most impassioned speech of the film about the power of love; Murph is an educated scientist whose devotion to the cause borders on the fanatical in the absence of any reasonable reinforcement for decades!

This is not a complaint about the final act’s metaphysical nature. In fact, I enjoyed that. After a very literal film about the perils of space travel, Interstellar evolves and goes into cerebral territory much akin to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I have no problem with cerebral science fiction; indeed, I enjoyed Love (reviewed here!) more than most and more than I did Interstellar. But for a film that is supposed to be about human resilience and hope in the face of potential extinction, Interstellar really cheaps out with a faith angle that is not at all scientific.

On the performance front, Interstellar is adequate. Some of the casting is a little weird; Mackenzie Foy looks like a pre-teen version of Anne Hathaway, yet her character Murph grows up to be played by Jessica Chastain and then Ellen Burstyn, so there’s really no clear evolution in how her body changes throughout her life cycle! That said, all three actresses make incredible use of their time on screen – Foy especially is a scene stealer. Jessica Chastain has a powerfully substantive role in Interstellar and what is perhaps most impressive about her performance is how she sells some of the most ridiculous leaps a scientist could make as plausible. For plot purposes, Murph realizes something impossibly obscure and Chastain acts around the improbability remarkably well.

Interstellar has an impressive supporting cast, led by Anne Hathaway. Hathaway is given remarkably little to do; her character of Amelia seems cold initially and Hathaway has to play the part with a bad-enough poker face for Cooper to realize that Amelia has an attachment to Edmund and she does that. But Hathaway has only one big scene in Interstellar where she is otherwise given enough space to act and give her character any dimension. Ironically, Matt Damon’s character of Dr. Mann is in Interstellar for far less time, but he is given more to do with greater range. Damon is able to evolve Mann from good-natured and grateful to unsettling and unhinged, with careful gradations in his behaviors! Wes Bentley, Michael Caine, Topher Grace, Casey Affleck, John Lithgow and David Gyasi (wow, Interstellar sure is a sausage fest – are all the women in this bleak future out farming, too?!) all have moments that make their characters watchable and/or interesting. But no one in the film really shines and makes the viewer think “wow, that’s an amazing performance!”

That includes Matthey McConaughey as Cooper. McConaughy plays Cooper as a reluctant leader who is determined to juggle two potentially opposite things; save the Earth and get back to Earth before his daughter dies! McConaughey is good for the film’s physical moments and he does most of the jargon just fine, but his performance is nothing superlative.

Sadly, the same can be said about the special effects in Interstellar. I was psyched to go see Interstellar in IMAX and once the film finally got off Earth, I became excited again. Just as Prometheus (reviewed here!) made great use of the massive IMAX canvas for illustrating a tiny ship next to a massive planet (it’s a very different effect on Blu-Ray on a small screen!), Interstellar features a tiny space ship next to Jupiter. And the spherical wormhole is pretty cool. And the trip through the wormhole is appropriately trippy. And the film’s climactic, metaphysical, event is awesome. But in between . . . meh. Director Christopher Nolan tells a few cool things using effects – the lander hitting a frozen cloud in the atmosphere of Mann’s planet is neat – but the effects are more mundane and obvious than they are incredible or truly special.

In fact, in the quest to make some good special effects frequently works to the detriment of the story in Interstellar. The Coopers are farmers in a society that values farmers; why is their house falling apart?! Seriously, we have better windows and doors today than the Coopers do and there is no real rational reason for that to be so (see the spoilerific section for more on this!).

The result is a surprisingly middle-of-the-road science fiction piece that does what it promises in the film’s first few moments - it tells the story of how humanity was saved – it just does not do it very well. In fact, Doctor Who pounded the same theme on the importance of exploration in the recent episode “Kill The Moon” (reviewed here!); that might have had an equally preposterous underlying supposition, but at least it was shorter!

6/10

So, beyond this point is the crux of my issues with Interstellar - SPOILERS ABOUND! READ BEYOND HERE AT YOUR OWN RISK TO ENJOYING THE MOVIEGOING EXPERIENCE!!!

Interstellar is plagued with some serious problems that the film is unable to reconcile and it is unfortunate for how a film that tries to be smart ends up being so very, very stupid. First, the narrative technique; old people discussing life in the future, where they were children. The Nolans seem to think viewers who they want to be smart enough to understand physics and philosophy will be unable to grasp that the narrative technique they use to establish the precepts of their near-future also deny the viewer of any question as to whether the mission of the Endeavor and Lazarus Project will be successful! This film is not like “The Inner Light” (reviewed here!) where all that is going to survive are the planet’s stories.

The second big problem is They. “They” are referred to as being interested in saving humanity and giving Cooper the coordinates to the NORAD facility. They set off a story that is inherently cyclical. Unlike Inception (reviewed here!) where the movie may be viewed as a loop that the audience is working back to, Interstellar depends upon the loop. In fact, the film is all about the loop. Unfortunately, the nature of the loop is obvious from almost the very first moments of the film. When a time/space anomaly is detected that is clearly artificial and has such specific effects as coding a message to a single person in a specific place and time, the nature of that loop is pretty obvious. Anyone who likes science fiction will know that Cooper is sending himself on the mission.

But, wow, does Cooper go the long way around! “They” are influencing gravity to make messages in dust. That ability could be used, any time after Cooper has left on his mission, to write messages in the dust without causing a paradox. In fact, if the Cooper house had just had modern windows, “They” could have written pretty decent, concrete, messages in the dust on the windows. Cooper could have written something in the dust that would have made Murph’s ridiculous leap make sense, something like “Second hand!” But alas, Interstellar does not do anything quite that smart, even as it is appearing to be smart.

That is because the entire conceit of the movie defies any sense of logic and reason. I understand paradoxes and I love narrative loops. I have absolutely no problem with effect preceding cause . . . but it has to make sense. Sadly, Interstellar doesn’t. Even non-linear narratives need to have a sense of reason; if time is a loop, events must conspire such that the first time through time, people or planets get to a point where the loop may occur (i.e. if the Earth is destroyed by all-out nuclear war before the time machine is invented, a human from the future cannot come back to influence the past). The reason it fails to make sense comes during the metaphysical climax to the movie. Cooper does not do enough to influence his own timeline to make events happen after he and TARS enter the black hole. Cooper should have created the gravity anomaly that crashed his first mission, but the Nolans forgot to address that.

The wormhole is a problem that is a macguffin that is not satisfactorily addressed. The Lazarus Project and the Endeavor are only able to go out to a distant galaxy thanks to the wormhole. The wormhole was supposedly created by Them, which would be Cooper and TARS, but they forgot to make it before reality on the other side the event horizon collapsed. Therefore, someone else had to make the wormhole and the only implication in the film is that it is hyper-evolved humans who exist in five dimensions in the distant future. But, here’s the problem; without Cooper getting saved by them, they can never exist. Cooper’s own story which puts him in the distant galaxy on the other side of the wormhole hinges on him getting messages back to Murph in both the past and present. Cooper’s message cannot be transmitted unless he and TARS solve the equation from within the event horizon. The choices then are that he is saved by aliens who have mastered the fifth dimension or that he and TARS create the wormhole to save themselves. Otherwise, cause and effect be damned; humans would not have come through the wormhole to evolve into fifth dimensional beings to save Cooper! They couldn’t have left the planet to get there. So, that puts Interstellar once again in remarkably unsatisfying territory; Cooper and TARS forgot to engineer the wormhole so they were saved by unseen aliens who manufactured a wormhole . . . why?!

Seriously, if we’re to buy that aliens save humans what. the. hell.?! Many, many galaxies away, aliens bend time and space to discover humans and they commit themselves to saving them . . . by putting a hole in space not really near enough to them to be particularly useful. Ugh!

For other works with Jessica Chastain, please check out my reviews of:
The Martian
The Help

6/10

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

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

With This Is 40, Judd Apatow Returns To Smart Dramedy!

The Good: Funny, Decent character conflicts, Entertaining story
The Bad: Somewhat formulaic in its resolution, No performances that truly “wowed” me
The Basics: Smartly capturing the angst of adult life, This Is 40 is a rare instance where the sequel is vastly superior to the original work!


For a few days now, my wife has been on me to watch This Is 40 with her. I had, admittedly, no real interest in seeing what was buzzed as the “sort of sequel” to Knocked Up (reviewed here!). I was not exactly motivated to watch This Is 40 because Knocked Up did not thrill me (though, admittedly, it grew on me some by the time I had my third viewing of it), so I went into This Is 40 last night with ridiculously low expectations.

And I was very pleasantly surprised.

Gone were the juvenile jokes that have plagued so many of Judd Apatow’s recent works and in its place was the Judd Apatow who originally got my attention with the magnificent Freaks And Geeks (reviewed here!). Despite its simple story and no real acting triumphs, This Is 40 is solidly entertaining and it explores well life in middle age when relationships take work and people get to the point where honesty trumps comfort and a couple has to find a way to live with the truths they expose to one another. This Is 40 has some wonderful lines – “J.J. Abrams is ruining our child!” – and a very modern understanding of the world and how it is to raise a child today.

As Pete and Debbie’s 40th birthdays approach, with Debbie insisting she is only turning 38 and going so far as to lie to her medical practitioners (and their billing departments), the couple experiences above average torsion associated with aging and the specific problems of their family. Pete has a record label that signs classic rock artists for new recordings and has been tragically unsuccessful. This comes at a time when Pete has loaned his father a lot of money and his current artist, Graham Parker, is dropping an album that all of Pete’s backers are convinced will not sell. With their money stretched for their joint 40th birthday party, financial problems overwhelming them and trying to help their children with bullies at school and their dependence upon technological devices, Pete and Debbie struggle to stay together and recall why they wanted to be together in the first place.

This Is 40 has a number of moments that any healthy couple who has had a dynamic relationship will recognize, from the moment where Debbie and Pete lovingly tell one another that they desperately never want to fight again to the moment they return from a retreat together to the first problem their children have and realize life never offers a full-time vacation. Judd Apatow, who wrote and directed This Is 40, is smart enough to include a multi-generational sense of conflict and comparison in this film. Debbie’s father is almost entirely absent and when he pops up for the birthday party, he mis-identifies Debbie’s employee, Desi, as one of his grandchildren. Conversely, Pete’s father is around more often than Debbie would like and his financial woes – the result of having three children very late in life – make his presence much more draining than enjoyable.

The presence of the parents to Pete and Debbie and their assorted issues – along with the comedy of adults now having siblings younger than their own children (Pete and Debbie’s children are older than the half-brothers and sisters both Pete and Debbie now have from their respective parents!) – puts the strained couple at a serious crossroad. In fact, one of the unfortunately dangling plotlines in This Is 40 is Debbie’s pregnancy. Debbie spends more time trying to track down who stole $12,000 from the boutique she runs than actually addressing what she and Pete will do about her unplanned pregnancy. Glossing over that is unfortunate given how straightforward This Is 40 is in tackling the other real world issues the movie takes on.

As for the acting, Judd Apatow uses his considerable cache to bring together some truly amazing talents for This Is 40. Despite oblique references to Ben and Kate (how the film gets around Kate missing her sister’s 40th birthday party is entirely dodged, though the presence of weed in the film is explained by the movie’s lone reference to the central protagonist from Knocked Up), the film employs remarkably few performers from Knocked Up. Apatow regulars Jason Segel and Charlyne Yi have supporting roles which are little more than cameos to service Debbie’s character (otherwise, Leslie Mann’s presence in the film would be entirely to react to relationship issues her character has with Pete). Graham Parker makes the most of his limited time on screen, though is oscillates between seeming like an advertisement for his new projects and making him seem like a bit of a dick (Pete is losing everything investing in the guy and he blithely notes, “I’ll be fine . . . they’re doing one of my songs on Glee.”). Sure, Apatow goes for some obvious eye candy – Megan Fox appears as Desi and is sure to show off most of her breasts – but he also goes with substance and quirky comedic deliveries with heavyweights like John Lithgow and Albert Brooks, respectively.

Much of the film hinges on Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann (Pete and Debbie) and they do a great job of taking two background characters who were closer to non-entities (Pete) and annoying (Debbie) in the prior outing to make them entirely interesting and viable characters worth spending two hours watching. Rudd is wonderful at playing a man with a quiet dream who is slowly watching it fail and slip away and his body language and deliveries – where almost everything comes out in quietly exasperated tones with only a hint of hope (which often borders on desperation) sneaking in at the end – are spot on. Mann makes Debbie sympathetic and not at all annoying, which is a nice step up from her portrayal of Debbie in Knocked Up. She is a fighter, fighting for her family and the “guard dog” mentality she presents is much less abrasive than in the first film.

In the end, This Is 40 does well what so many films try to do, but fail; it straddles the borders of comedy and drama to create a movie that explores serious, real-world issues and the consequences of relationships, while managing to be entirely entertaining (and not emotionally oppressive in any way). That makes This Is 40 one of the late-release gems of 2012 and a must-watch now that it has dropped on DVD and Blu-Ray.

For other works Judd Apatow has been involved with, please visit my reviews of:
Girls - Season 1
The Five-Year Engagement
Wanderlust
Bridesmaids
Year One
Pineapple Express
Step Brothers
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby
The 40 Year-Old Virgin
Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy
The Critic

7.5/10

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

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

After A Good Start, The Campaign Becomes Stubbornly Mediocre.

The Good: Humor, Zach Galifianakis’s performance, Initial plot
The Bad: In the middle, it stops being as funny
The Basics: Not a bad Will Ferrell comedy, The Campaign starts as a smart treatise on American politics before degenerating into a very standard comedy film.


Now that the 2012 election cycle is finally over, my wife and I took in the latest Will Farrell magnum opus, The Campaign. My wife is a big fan of Will Farrell and I tend to enjoy politically-themed movies. For sure, I never expected The Campaign to be as civically-minded as, for example, Swing Vote (reviewed here!), but given how the comedy actually begins with some decent moments that imply the importance of political activism, the movie quickly raised my hopes. Sadly, though, for as good as The Campaign begins, it quickly degenerates into a very standard Will Farrell comedy.

Actually, The Campaign stops being funny right around the middle as it strives for absurd humor instead of keeping a tight, political comedy that worked. After a time, The Campaign simply drags and recycles its own jokes.

Cam Brady is a North Carolina Congressman in the House of Representatives who spews obvious slogans and has affairs with young women who show up at his ridiculous campaign rallies. Looking forward to his next unopposed election to the House, Cam is shocked when the odd local, Marty Huggins applies to run against him. Supported by the Motch brothers, who have an agenda to turn the district into a Chinese sweatshop district, Marty begins a campaign, ostensibly to make his former politician father less disappointed in him.

While the odds seem exceptionally long for Marty, calling Cam out on his non-answer at their first debate gives the outsider some real support. That support is quickly increased when Marty accidentally punches a baby following the debate. As the neck and neck campaign commences, both Marty and Cam try various tactics that further take their campaigns away from the issues and gut their integrity.

The Campaign has some smart issues, but it buries them so far down as to make one think they were more of an afterthought. For example, writers Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell insert the idea that the Motch Brothers run the company that makes the voting machines. This is a very real problem, as made obvious by politics in Ohio. Yet, The Campaign refuses to actually address this serious issue. It appears near the climax of the film as a single, visual joke and it does not quite work as well as it could have because it is not followed up on with anything remotely resembling intelligent discourse.

Such is the real folly of The Campaign; it starts off with decent issues – the corruption of American politics by big business and the importance of people actually joining in the political process – but then ignores them in order to make silly jokes that slowly bleed the film dry. Using Cam to hit a dog late in the film feels less clever than like a motif and the fact that Mitzi goes through with sleeping with him seems unfathomable, despite the fact that the writers do continue to have her character frustratingly mention that she wishes Marty was around more.

The Campaign is seldom about actual character development; it is very predictable on that front and in no way audacious.

Fortunately, the acting in The Campaign is solid. John Lithgow seems professional in a way that I’ve not seen him in other films of late. Far away from the doddering, aging characters, like the one he played in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes (reviewed here!) , Lithgow seems like exactly what he is supposed to: a businessman in the prime of his power.

Zach Galifianakis shows a delightfully ridiculous side as Marty Huggins that is different enough from his other fool or ridiculous characters that makes him seem distinctive and worth watching. The best that may be said about Will Ferrell is that he is not simply recapping his usual George W. Bush impersonations as Cam Brady. Ferrell’s character is a smart parody of John Edwards and he plays it well.

Ultimately, The Campaign is fine, but in no way exceptional. It is a fine cap to this year’s political season and worth one viewing, if not purchasing for one’s permanent collection.

For other political comedies, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The American President
American Dreamz
Man Of The Year

5/10

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.
| | |

Just Another Teen Movie: Orange County

The Good: Amusing In parts, Cameos, Moments of acting
The Bad: Much of the plot, Predictable character arcs, Oversimplified resolutions
The Basics: A surprisingly disappointing film, Orange County follows a witless quest to get into Stanford or maybe learn the obvious.


When I sat down to Orange County, I had high hopes. I had seen some extended trailers for it and I was excited; it looked intelligent and funny. Within a half hour into the flick, I was fast on my way to being disappointed. It appeared early on that the eighty-some minute film put its best moments forth in the three minute trailer.

Orange County follows Shaun Brumder, A-student, aspiring author on his quest to get into Stanford. What ought to be an easy task for this brilliant young man is thwarted by a dimwitted guidance counselor who mistakenly sends the wrong transcript to the college. Shaun then goes on a road trip with his drug addled brother Lance and idealistic girlfriend Ashley to Stanford to make the case for Shaun's admission in person. And the film goes down from there. In the process of trying to set things right, Shaun meets his idol, author Marcus Skinner, Ashley drugs the dean of admissions and Lance burns down the admissions building.

Sigh. I had such hopes for this film. In truth, this film begins with an intelligent premise and a slick sense of humor and quickly degenerates into an oversimplistic fantasy of a teenager whose from a broken home. I don't mean Shaun, though his parents are divorced, I mean the author of this film. All of the conflicts in Orange County are resolved quickly and without any real insight into the human condition.

The purpose of the film seems to be to get Shaun into Stanford and Shaun's journey into understanding that Orange County is where he truly needs to be. But the premise is set up for a film far more intelligent than that. That is, a kid as bright as Shaun ought to have figured out by the end of high school that kids everywhere are essentially the same. It comes as a revelation to Shaun that Stanford students listen to the same music, feel the same way about literature and dress essentially the same as those in Orange County. Stanford doesn't equal deep and intellectual and a student as bright as Shaun ought to have realized this long before now.

Instead, this seems to come as a tremendous revelation to Shaun and it comes across as silly to the viewer. Shaun ends up appearing far more dimwitted than reasonable. And his conflict with Stanford is too easily resolved. In fact, all conflicts are too simply and neatly tied up by the end. Shaun's parents, divorced for some time, have one affair and decide to get back together, Shaun's father donates a vast amount of money to Stanford to get Shaun in and Ashley simply asks Shaun to stay and he acquiesces. None of the conflicts seem to have any magnitude as they are all simply resolved along the path of least resistance.

Or the path that requires the least drama and sensibility. The plot with Shaun's parents is especially troubling for anyone looking for anything intelligent here.

Equally disturbing is the acting in Orange County. The cast is made up of actors playing characters and a pool of cameos. Colin Hanks does a competent job as Shaun, creating a strange mix of apathy and manic devotion to the concept of Stanford. Jack Black does a wonderful job as Lance, making the drugged out stereotype funny and almost realistic.

Schuyler Fisk, who plays Ashley, is said to be one of today's hottest stars. After Orange County, I'm not sure why. Outside bringing her fabulous hair to the project, she added nothing to Ashley that wasn't on the page and didn't seem to radiate anything. In fact, John Lithgow had far more screen presence, infusing facial gestures and body language with lines that could easily have come across as canned to create one of the film's most noteworthy characters.

And then there are the cameos. Garry Marshall, Harold Ramis, Chevy Chase, Lily Tomlin, Kevin Kline and Ben Stiller all appear in the film. Now, I'm not an idiot; those are all actors, not characters. Too bad they don't actually work that way in the movie. In Orange County, these brief roles appear and the top name actors who play them bring nothing to the roles besides themselves. So, for instance, when Ben Stiller appears as a fireman, the scene plays as Ben Stiller in a fireman's uniform. It's still Ben Stiller. And Stiller is fine, but he's not playing a fireman, he's playing Ben Stiller. And so on with all of these cameos.

That's disappointing, but typical for a film that sells itself well in the three minute version, but fails to deliver for the bulk of the picture. Orange County is plagued by cliches of the irresponsible older brother, the overachieving father and the kooky girlfriend and resolutions that are disproportionately simple to the problems.

That's not to say it's all bad. The film is funny and I found myself laughing at several points, especially near the beginning. And if I have nothing else to do, it's likely I'll even watch the flick again. But I'll always be disappointed because I was convinced this was going to break the mold and be something worth seeing over and over again. Instead, I got the same old comedy. I'd rather watch Dogma. Hell, even Mallrats has a leg up on this.

For other works with John Lithgow, please visit my reviews of:
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Leap Year
Confessions Of A Shopaholic
Shrek
Terms Of Endearment

5/10

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

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Women Are Idiots (That's Not Me Saying That, That's Confessions Of A Shopaholic)!

The Good: Looks good
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Monolithic presentation of women, No charm, Poor acting, Overbearing soundtrack.
The Basics: A decent social message about responsible spending is buried beneath contrived plots and ridiculous gender stereotypes that makes Confessions Of A Shopaholic easy to avoid!


Last night, as a little relief for me from my ongoing race through films that won the Best Picture, I decided to take in a new movie. My partner wasn't feeling well, so while she slept and I waited for her fever to break, I popped in the DVD of Confessions Of A Shopaholic. For those who have read my other reviews, you know I have been dreading seeing this film because the previews looked just that bad to me. Sadly, seeing the film finally confirmed my worst fears about it. This movie treats women in a monolithic way and it reinforces all of the worst stereotypes about them. In this film, women are simply shopping-crazed, giggling girls with no real understanding of money or responsibility and the sole desire to get married and acquire new outfits and accessories. Confessions Of A Shopaholic is not funny, not charming and not at all original. Instead, it is a quagmire of cinematic suck that ought to get everyone associated with it banned from making movies ever again.

Why, then, did I even bother with Confessions Of A Shopaholic if I thought it would be so bad? First, as part of my tradition of trying to experience all I can of films in a given year in order to accurately consider the best and worst of the year's cinema, it became a necessary thing (oh yes, it make the "Worst Of 2009" list!). Second, and most importantly, I had truly enjoyed Isla Fisher in Definitely, Maybe (reviewed here!) and my thought was that if anyone could turn what looked like a trainwreck in the previews around, this young actress ought to be given the chance. Sadly, the previews were entirely revealing of the film and Confessions Of A Shopaholic is shallow, predictable and so canned that it is exactly what the characters in it are: empty shells masquerading as desirable.

Rebecca Bloomwood is a journalist who loves to shop. After a series of impulse shopping trips that rack up a massive credit card debt and the magazine she works for folding, Rebecca finds herself in a serious fiscal crisis. As a debt collector, Derek Smeath, hunts Rebecca and her excuses run thin, she lands a job working for a small financial magazine where she writes articles that compare finances to shopping and they resonate well with readers. They also get her the attention of the magazine's new editor-in-chief, Luke Brandon, who was brought in from the media conglomerate to turn the small magazine around.

Soon, though, Rebecca's life is spiraling out of control. As Derek nears, her best friend Suze gets her enrolled in Shopaholics Anonymous and tries to help Rebecca reform before her own wedding. Rebecca is exposed by Derek as the shopaholic that is the antithesis to her own column's advice, which guts Rebecca's chance of landing her dream job at Alette Magazine, costs her Luke's interest and finds her without her bridesmaid's dress, thanks to a new more militant leader at Shopaholics Anonymous. Can Rebecca repair her damaged reputation, get her bridesmaid's dress back and become of interest to her boss, Luke again?

Who cares!? What isn't cliche in Confessions Of A Shopaholic is thoroughly unlikable and almost all of the conflicts in the movie are either predictable or melodramatic. On the predictable side, there is the romantic subplot between Luke and catty Alette writer Alicia. Similarly, the plot predictability of the best friend getting married, will Rebecca actually make it to the wedding to be a bridesmaid conflict is obvious. It's that kind of movie. But that plot is also melodramatic and the over-the-top girlish stereotype of Rebecca and Suze is not only annoying, it is offensive.

Women in Confessions Of A Shopaholic are monolithically ditzy with little real strength and less resolve. The men are smart, rational and ruthless, so they fare no better in the film. Indeed, the only thing more ridiculous than the gross gender stereotypes in the movie is how Luke suddenly transforms into that type woman's ideal when he reveals he knows all of the major designers (he "speaks Prada") making him even more of a catch for Rebecca. I suppose it is a marginally better use of character than suddenly making Luke a cheap gay stereotype by suddenly being able to speak like the women in the movie.

The thing is, director P.J. Hogan makes Confessions Of A Shopaholic look good, but like the characters, it is an empty beauty. The movie is filmed in bright colors with great contrast and a color palate that plays on all the same tones as a candy counter, but the longer one looks at the movie, the less overwhelmed they are by the look and one is left with the substance. Or lack thereof. Confessions Of A Shopaholic is shocking in that the 104 minute movie took three screenwriters to adapt the books to film. Not one of them was able to translate (if it were possible) a likable character to the screen that the audience might empathize with.

The few potential points Confessions Of A Shopaholic could have made are quickly undermined by the cheap joked made in their place. Confessions Of A Shopaholic could be a searing indictment of capitalism and marketing gone awry and ruining the lives of innocent consumers. Instead, Rebecca takes no responsibility for her actions and she presents her shopping love as part of a fairy tale she was raised on. Her parents, likable lower/lower-middle class workers, are never chided enough for not preparing her to live in the real world where her bills would actually have to be paid.

Ultimately, though, Confessions Of A Shopaholic does not rail against the systems, it illustrates how vacuous getting love from shopping is, but only after belaboring just how wonderful all of the things one can get are. Similarly, those who have ever suffered from an addiction are likely to find Confessions Of A Shopaholic downright offensive for the way addictions and impulse control issues are used interchangeably. Rebecca does not suffer a serious compulsion and the way her "shopaholic" nature is presented makes some pretty cheap shots at those who have real addictions.

And the soundtrack is just terrible. Throughout the film, inane dance-pop numbers overwhelm the viewer and it's just loud.

The final disappointment for me was the acting. The acting in Confessions Of A Shopaholic is homogeneously bad, though part of this certainly comes from virtually every performer playing an unlikable character. So much talent is wasted and one has to wonder how John Goodman, John Lithgow, and Kristin Scott Thomas became involved with this project. Krysten Ritter looks especially skeletal as Suze, setting up a pretty dangerous standard for girls who might watch this (it is PG!). Even Hugh Dancy, who blew me away a few days ago in Adam is listless and unconvincing as Luke.

But Isla Fisher is responsible for carrying Confessions Of A Shopaholic as Rebecca and she plays the role in such an offensive way toward women that the only analogy I have is a minstrel show. Fisher plays the role of Rebecca like the lowest parody of woman, much the way minstrel shows used to and the longer the movie goes on, the more difficult it is to watch her go through the motions of every rotten stereotype about how ditzy and dishonest young women are. If there's no other reason to avoid Confessions Of A Shopaholic it is to avoid encouraging other writers and directors to use Ms. Fisher as the Uncle Tom of the double x chromosomes.

On DVD, Confessions Of A Shopaholic has some bonus features. I sat through previews for other romantic comedies, but could not stomach checking any other bonus features out.

And I'd say "sorry," but I'm not. This movie is one of the year's worst films and now that I've seen it, I can say that with all the authority and integrity my prior suppositions lacked. Save this much of your life and tune in to something better!

For other “chick flicks,” be sure to visit my reviews of:
Easy A
Love And Other Drugs
He's Just Not That Into You

.5/10

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

© 2011, 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Summer Blockbuster Season Ends On A High Note With Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes!

The Good: Special effects, Story, Acting
The Bad: A little lighter on character development than I'd like.
The Basics: Summer's last foreseeable blockbuster, Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is an engaging story of scientific endeavor gone wrong!


I'm the first to admit that I bet wrong that Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2 would keep Captain America: The First Avenger from hitting the #1 spot at the box office the weekend it made its debut. But for the most part, I've had a pretty good run this Summer Blockbuster Season and I'm looking at what's on the horizon and I'm thinking it's done this week. Sure, there's still Conan The Barbarian in late-August, but it seems to me like Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is the last big summer movie before August turns into comedy and art house films, which is a little earlier than most years. Indeed, I have to give some credit to the studios for putting out The Help and One Day early, as if December won't be so loaded with Oscar pandering for a change. And looking for a pretty solid special-effects Oscar (nomination, if not win) is the surprisingly cerebral Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.

While the special effects in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes are both simple and mind-blowing - the digitally-created apes are incredible, but they are essentially the same level of technology that allowed moviegoers to be entirely fooled by Armie Hammer playing both of the Winklevoss twins in The Social Network (reviewed here!) - the real story for the film is how good the story actually is. Rumor is that many people went through trying to write the script before it ended up in the hands of Pierre Boulle, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver. Those writers managed to create a work that feels like classic science fiction, meaning the film is not about the special effects it is about the story. The special effects are truly special in that they help to create one of the film's most important characters. Caesar is a viable character not just from the special effects, but from the actions of the character and that makes it a film with a message, not just a wow factor.

Will is slaving away at a research facility in San Francisco with more than a professional interest in the work he does. He is working on gene therapies that will cure diseases like Alzheimer's, a disease his own father has. The experiments are going well and tests on a chimpanzee seem to work until she freaks out. It is quickly revealed, however, that she was just protecting her progeny, Caesar. Caesar, it seems, has his mother's high intelligence and he is rescued by Will and over years of study and testing, Will uses the experimental drug on his own father, with positive results. Caesar's intelligence is high and working with Will, he soon begins to realize himself as a fully-capable organism with inherent rights.

Unfortunately, after protecting Will's father, Caesar is locked up and treated cruelly by Dodge. As Will fights for Caesar's release, the primate takes matters into his own hands. Unfortunately for Will and his boss, Steven, the medicine developed when Charles develops an immunity to the first treatment is not entirely stable and has unforeseen consequences for humans. As Will struggles to reconcile his feelings for Caesar with his research, Caesar enhances his peers and leads a revolt for freedom.

Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes could have been cheesy, but it wisely avoids dated aspects and keeps the story grounded in what seems like a scientifically plausible reality. Will is a serious scientist and his father's condition makes him vulnerable, which becomes an interesting arc for not only his character, but Caesar's. Caesar is raised with learned people in a positive environment, which allows him to plausibly develop the philosophical drive for freedom that one expects. As well, the cruelty he faces when remanded to the custody of the Landons makes it seem like a reasonable character leap that Caesar would violently overthrow those imprisoning him.

Director Rupert Wyatt smartly plays to the strengths of both James Franco and the special effects department. Franco has a very serious, deliberate side that he can play to and Wyatt keeps the movie focused on that aspect of the performer. Almost entirely absent from Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is Franco's trademark boyish smile. Instead, in this movie he is thoughtful, often humorless and devoted to the scientific process. Franco plays off Freida Pinto, Caroline, remarkably well. Franko plays serious and like the stereotype of a scientist, while Pinto's Caroline nurtures Caesar's "humanity." Pinto is a nice foil and she emotes exceptionally well, which Wyatt taps into without making the film into an obvious Odd Couple play. But, between Will and Caroline, Caesar has two role models whose methods he is able to emulate to formulate his own philosophy.

The special effects department, then, is given the job of selling the intelligence of Caesar and the brutality that comes as he leads his revolt. While Tom Felton seems utterly unafraid of getting typecast - he brings his Draco Malfoy sneer to the role of Dodge - the special effects department is layering over Andy Serkis to make Caesar and the other apes viable characters. They sell the antagonists through the eyes. Sure, the movie features some of the most disturbingly realistic footage of CG gorillas attacking humans, but the quieter moments are what make this a real thriller. When Caesar's eyes narrow and the intelligence within them is evident, it is enough to send chills up one's spine. Having had my spine so chilled, I speak from experience.

And because it is likely to get completely overlooked as the movie turns from thoughtful into a dangerous, ape-filled war zone, the acting in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes is phenomenal. Not only do James Franco and Freida Pinto play off one another well, Tom Felton, Brian Cox and David Oyelowo give great supporting performances. Of course, Caesar's performance is based upon Andy Serkis, so he deserves some serious acting credit as well.

But it is John Lithgow who steals the show. In Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes for only a short time, Lithgow creates one of the most memorable characters of his career as Charles. Lithgow provides an emotional tether for the audience and for Caesar that is frequently difficult to watch. Just as Caesar is embodied through the life in his eyes, Lithgow drains the life from his to create Charles, who is the shade of the man he once was. This ought to be an easy Best Supporting Actor Oscar for Lithgow, but one suspects because the performance comes in this movie, he will be overlooked.

That should not be a reason not to see Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, though. Anyone looking for a thoughtful, intriguing and often disturbing film that takes the viewer on a journey from the methodical and scientific arena into the chaos of a very messy war zone will enjoy Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes.

For other works featuring Tyler Labine, please check out my reviews of:
Zack And Miri Make A Porno
Boston Legal - Season 3
Invasion
The X-Files - Season 3

8.5/10

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

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

Shrek: A Collection Of Allusions That Fails To Be Its Own

The Good: Concept, Moments of humor
The Bad: Animation, Failure to be cohesive
The Basics: Surprisingly unsatisfying as it tells the same type joke over and over, Shrek is plagued with poor animation, timing and balance of allusions to original material.


Most spoof films don't rate so high in my book. It's not that I don't enjoy them, because usually, I do. The problem is they suffer exponentially upon rewatching. That is, a film like Spaceballs that plunders around the science fiction landscape alluding to something in each scene (though primarily focusing on Star Wars) is hilarious the first time, amusing the second and by the third, you're only smiling. Don't ask me to watch it a fourth time. Humor is tricky. I think the reason every true geek ends up reciting from Monty Python (usually, sigh, from Monty Python And The Holy Grail, though I personally prefer the episodes) and/or The Kids In the Hall is because it stands up well over multiple viewings. In fact, it's raw, honest humor that will endure so long as there's a society to be challenged; jokes on other works, especially more transient works than universal concepts, suffer immensely upon rewatching.

So, the first question is, was I entertained while watching Shrek? No. Would I reckon I'd enjoy it more or less the second go around? Less, most assuredly. The answer, in this case, is remarkably simple. I mean, usually when I'm borderline on something, as I was on Shrek, it takes me a day or two to diagnose the problem. In this case, it was that the film is a spoof and that's fine, but it's a spoof of the lowest order. That came out much more derogatory than I intended, allow me to explain. If a spoof is a work that alludes to others and attempts to usurp the purpose of the alluded films through humor, then it seems to me the greatest spoofs would call upon the most sources, mostly subtly (so at least 50% would take a second viewing simply to catch), while telling its own, unique story that becomes part of the collective unconscious in and of itself. I can't come up with a spoof that has done that yet either. As far as comedies go, Dogma would fill this niche. Moving on, it strikes me then that the lowest form of spoof would be the one that simply strings together allusion after allusion without adding anything truly unique. The lowest form of a spoof would be a one trick pony, mocking the alluded-to works in much the same way throughout. In simpler terms, the lowest form of spoof would tell the same joke over and over again essentially or pick on the alluded-to works in the same ways throughout.

Shrek is one such film. In it, the Ogre Shrek finds his swamp invaded by fairy tale creatures, in the company of a donkey, when he resolves to deal with the problem. So, he visits the diminutive Lord Farquaad and goes on a quest to rescue a princess who, despite her first impression, is not the typical fairy tale princess.

In short, Shrek is a ninety minute stringing together of jokes about fairy tales and Disney and Disney-style films. To its credit, it's a nice idea. I like the idea of mocking fairy tales. The problem is it turns them all the same way. Everything is supposedly not what we expect, so by the time we get five minutes in we're expecting it. For instance, Ogres are classically thought to be mean and evil and we're exposed to one who is good natured and a jokester. We encounter a donkey that speaks and pesters, rather than aids, the protagonist. Thus, by the time the Lord and the Princess enter, we expect them to be something other than they appear and we are not surprised then by their secrets.

To its credit, Shrek doesn't only attack fairy tales and Disney fare, it tackles plenty of other films (like The Matrix and Babe). The problem is, that's all it does. The film is a constant stringing together of allusions. I can't name a single scene that did not allude to some other work. So, it had the feel of a protracted mockery. Often, reviewers of films based on Saturday Night Live sketches complain that the sketches were wonderful, but that they film kills it stretching it into a work at least ninety minutes long. Well, Shrek suffers similarly and I think it no surprise that it clocks out at exactly ninety minutes.

My other beef, other than the lack of substance in this film, is the animation. I watched it on DVD and I was disappointed with the animation. I mean, Princess Fiona's eyes are lifelike and I know a lot of effort went into them. They are the superlative point of animation. The animation is choppy in parts and my real problem is in movements. Things in Shrek have a habit of not moving like things in real life. By that I mean that if you go back and watch early Disney films, it's obvious the animators study the ways bodies move and they worked hard to get it right. The animators in Shrek made no such efforts and it shows.

Good for two to five laughs, Shrek failed to do anything original, simply making joke after joke after joke after joke and, as we know, even comedies, even spoofs, need to have something more than just that.

For other animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Shrek Forever After: The Final Chapter
Hoodwinked!
Toy Story 3

5/10

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

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Romance With A Bit Of Comedy, Terms Of Endearment Is Good, But Not Great.

The Good: Funny, Good character development, Decent acting
The Bad: Time leaps are problematic, Characters do unlikable things, Light on DVD bonus features, Soundtrack.
The Basics: Funny until it takes a turn to the depressing, Terms Of Endearment is a remarkably safe tear-jerker.

As my wife and I finish watching Frasier (reviewed here!), I've been trying to find things by people involved in that to keep exposing her to. My wife has grown to love Frasier and trying to find things with the same actors or by those who were involved in the production of it has kept us both entertained. I mention this at the outset of my review of Terms Of Endearment because my wife was excited about watching it with me because I told her that the writer/director of the film, James L. Brooks, was one of the co-creators of her now-beloved Frasier. As it turns out, Brooks is the creator of The Critic, which my wife loves, not Frasier. But this digression is not as pointless as it might seem; there are a lot of parallels between Terms Of Endearment and Frasier.

Like Frasier, Terms Of Endearment is character-driven story with both romantic and dramatic elements to it. Both are written with higher levels of diction and span many years in terms of storytelling. But, truth be told, Terms Of Endearment is no Frasier and while it had its moments, I found myself more neutral to the film than truly impressed by it. Terms Of Endearment is based upon a novel by Larry McMurtry, but this review is solely of the cinematic rendering of the story. Any of the problems or aspects of the book not included in the film remain unknown to me.

Growing up with her ultra-controlling mother, Emma looks forward to fleeing the nest. As a result, at the earliest possible time, she marries her high school fling, Flap. Despite her mother, Aurora's, insistence and protests that Flap is entirely wrong for her, Emma marries Flap and together they run off to Des Moines because of his teaching job. As Emma and Flap have children and struggle to maintain their marriage, Aurora overcomes feeling old about her age by starting to see the promiscuous former-astronaut who lives next door. While Aurora slowly overcomes her timidity and begins to fall in love with Garret, Emma deals with her family's poverty and the growing distance between her and Flap.

Not wanting his lifestyle to change, Garret eventually freaks out on Aurora and Emma and Flap grow even more distant as Emma suspects the young professor is cheating on her. Even as Emma has an affair of her own with a local banker, Flap is offered an opportunity in Nebraska. With the demands of raising their children and a health problem overwhelming her, Emma begins to turn to her mother in a way she never expected herself to.

Terms Of Endearment is an interesting character study that is laugh-out-loud funny in points and actually heartwrenching at others, but how it won the top Oscar prize remains a mystery to me. Perhaps this was another year when there were no truly great choices. Or perhaps it is because after not moving for an hour and a half, Terms Of Endearment becomes a surprisingly powerful drama. What Terms Of Endearment does very well is capture the randomness of life and the way that one’s fortunes are never truly anticipated. The early antagonist in the film, Aurora, has a decent arc whereby she slowly begins to loosen up and enjoy life, which is a far cry from the character who timidly enters her daughter's room convinced the baby is dead (preferring the screaming child to the sound asleep girl).

But what it failed to do for me was create empathetic characters. Terms Of Endearment is largely considered a classic tear-jerker because of the health issue with Emma in the last portion of the film, but before that, her character does a lot of things that make it hard to actually be on her side. The film never definitively establishes if Flap is actually cheating on her or if it is her being overly suspicious . . . until long after she is engaged in an extramarital affair herself. So, while by and large fans want to root for her, she does some things which are low and obvious that we do not see Flap engage in. In fact, his only confirmed affairs come after Emma is already cheating on him and the first time we see her “evidence,” he is trying to talk an amorous student off him.

In some ways, Terms Of Endearment is unfair to the female characters; Aurora is neurotic and Emma is rebellious, suspicious and ultimately a cheating wife, so there is a lot of moral ambiguity to the characters. In fact, Sam, the man Emma has the affair with, is almost characterized as noble for sticking with his crippled wife while he has an affair, whereas one interpretation of Terms Of Endearment would be that Emma’s illness is Fate biting her in the butt for her own infidelity.

That said, what makes Terms Of Endearment fun and worthwhile – not the obvious, overbearing annoying ?’s soundtrack through all the most poignant moments! – is the acting. Jack Nicholson appears as Garrett and this comedic turn actually prepares viewers for later roles like the one he had in As Good As It Gets. Clearly different from his McMurphy character, Garrett is a womanizer who actually seems to enjoy life and have some moments of depth to him. Nicholson plays the role with a wonderful sense of physical comedy as well as line deliveries that make the verbal humor work.

Similarly, Jeff Daniels, Danny DeVito (whose role is little more than a cameo) and John Lithgow all have decent supporting roles which allow them to do the best they can with the roles they are given. The one who shines, though, is Shirley MacLaine as Aurora. She is energetic as the character develops, but solemn through most of the film. MacLaine makes it easy for viewers to not like Aurora, but she plays the role of the protective mother without any of the shrill quality she possessed for Postcards From The Edge.

Unfortunately, the nature of the story rides Debra Winger a bit hard. Debra Winger looks young as Emma, disturbingly so in the movie’s earliest scenes. But the film jumps awkwardly into the future at intervals that take a moment or two for the viewer to catch up with. The problem is Winger does not age as the movie goes on a sufficient amount. Emma’s children grow up, Winger looks essentially as she did the day the first one was born. Her performance does not develop the character with any additional sense of maturity either. This becomes a problem the longer the film goes on, especially when Emma gets ill.

That said, Terms Of Endearment is a worthwhile film and it is a family drama the whole family may enjoy. Moreover, unlike some films that come later, the struggles in this movie are a bit simpler and more realistic, making it much more accessible. On DVD, Terms Of Endearment comes with a commentary track and the theatrical trailers for the film. It is more than enough for this drama, as the commentary track is remarkably thorough with the behind-the-scenes information on the movie.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project here! Please check it out!]

For other works with Danny DeVito, please check out my reviews of:
It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Season 3
It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Seasons 1 & 2
Big Fish
The Rainmaker
L.A. Confidential
Batman Returns

6/10

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

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |