Coming Late To The Party; I Get Around To Watching And Reviewing ID4

The Good: Moments of character, Judd Hirsch, Concept
The Bad: Special effects underwhelmed, Much of the acting, character and plot, One too many character groups
The Basics: In an overall disappointing science fiction summer blockbuster extravaganza, aliens arrive at Earth to blow everything up and it's up to Americans to come together to stop them.


The first time I encountered Independence Day, it was still known as ID4. I was at a Star Trek convention and the trailer was being shown and the audience got it. Apparently, our mass culture couldn't fathom a number at the end of the title unless it was a sequel and in the weeks before the film was theatrically released in 1996 the title was changed to Independence Day. At the time, I opted against it. I "got" the concept, but even at the time, the special effects did not look all that great to me and I avoided it. I was given the opportunity to see the special edition DVD and I decided it was time. The shortest version of this review I can possibly give is: I could have gone to my grave just fine having never seen this movie.

On July second, aliens arrive in giant motherships over major world cities. There are approximately fifteen of these giant, disc-shaped starships that break off the true mothership which is stationed near the moon and has about a quarter the mass of the moon. Scientist David Levinson soon realizes that these aliens are neither funloving nor here for our planet's cuisine when he discovers they are using our satellite network to communicate around planet a countdown. He rushes to the side of the american president, Thomas Whitmore, a possibility because his ex-wife works for him, with his findings. Whitmore, Levinson and the highest members of the government take off moments before the aliens let loose a barrage that utterly destroy's the world's major cities.

Over the course of the ensuing days, the military strikes back and fails, including marine pilot Steven Hiller. As Whitmore and Levinson work to outsmart the invaders with a trip to Area 51, which is as real as every conspiracy theorist in existence would hope, Hiller journeys with an alien pilot from a downed enemy craft to the same location. As humanity is looking at extinction, all of the main characters converge and, working together, work to thwart the invading armada.

The thing is, from the very first moments of Independence Day, this feels like something we've seen before. I watched the special edition with 9 minutes of restored footage, putting this movie at the 153 minute (2 1/2 hours) mark. It felt much longer. And while alien invasion movies are not new, this rendition felt especially canned, felt like something very specific the viewer had seen before. Pacing, story structure and sheer number of characters is almost identical to the mid-80s masterpiece mini-series V (reviewed here!). This is more than just nitpicky; ID4 was so derivative of V that the ships hovering over the major cities look almost identical, save that in this newer incarnation they are black as opposed to gray.

Now, I'm someone who likes epics, but Independence Day is more sloppy than grand in scale. There are no less than 5 groups that have stories that need to be resolved: Whitmore and his wife (who is stranded out in Los Angeles), Hiller and his stripper girlfriend, David and his ex-wife (and we'll throw his father in here, too, so as not to make it look ridiculously overwhelming), Russell and his family, and the relationship between the President and the intelligence community. The thing is, the movie only works as well as it does with all of these various elements because it is constructed to work so well with them. What I mean by that is that this movie could have used at least one less of these threads (I'd opt for ridding the movie of alien-abductee Russell Casse and his ridiculous subplot wherein his children need medicine) and used that time to develop some of the other threads more fully. This would have resulted in some of the plot points needing different resolution, but I could have lived with that.

The other annoying factor of ID4 is that for an epic, it's awfully limited, terribly ethnocentric. Even in the belabored Signs (reviewed here!) it's not just the Americans that are fighting the aliens. As a result, other places in the world learn how to thwart the aliens quicker than the Americans. In Independence Day, the U.S. is leading the charge and it just feels forced. A movie that is trying to put the entire world in peril could use more of a multiethnic cast. For something that was supposed to be so big and devastating, this movie seems very insulated within the confines and prejudices of the United States. A perfect example of this prejudice comes in the listing of cities around the world that are being attacked. Three are in the U.S. None are in China. If the point of the invasion is to wipe out humanity, I'd go for where there are a lot of humans!

Outside the weird dichotomy of smallness of scope combined with having far too many characters working out relationships, ID4 suffers because as a special effects movie, it's not terribly special or sensible. In fact, there's dark humor in viewing it for the first time here in 2007; when New York City has been leveled two of the only buildings still standing are the World Trade Center buildings. And with that in mind, the silliness of the attack pattern of the aliens is revealed. If you want to cripple the world, attacking the halls of power, industry and economy is a great strategy. The aliens center on the Empire State Building (not the WTCs), the White House (not Congress or K Street), and downtown Los Angeles (no complaints with that choice). We are told they attack Moscow, London, Bangladesh as well. Leveling major cities makes a great deal of sense, but in order to make the special effects aspect of the movie work, the film sacrifices any sense of realism or substance. Alien ships hover over New York City and the people there wait for the President to ask them to leave in an orderly fashion?! That's b.s.! Sure, blowing up the White House looks great for movie trailers and posters, but it's not the most sensible target.

There are any number of technical aspects to make this movie problematic, but in the long run, special effects are only one point in the scale. As for the numerous plot problems, they count for more, but the cumulative effect is that the plot is usually used to serve the effects and the story elements that are most troublesome come in the character front.

None of the characters works in a completely believable fashion, save perhaps Area 51 denizens Dr. Brackish Okun and Major Mitchell. General Grey essentially turns over the military directly to the President, which I can live with up until the moment the President decides he's hopping in a plane. Whitmore tells Grey, "I'm a fighter pilot . . ." and Grey accepts that based on Whitmore's prior military experience in the Gulf War. The thing is, Grey's responsibility there was to note that Whitmore was no longer a fighter pilot, he's the President and there's no way such a general would let the last surviving world leader into a combat position for the simple fact that if he falls, there is no one left to lead.

Captain Hiller works for the most part, but his relationship with Jasmine is rushed and seems forced with the pace of the apocalypse on him. Moreover, his character is one who exerts himself the most physically over the course of the movie, yet we never see him sleeping. He's always doing something. Military or not, that's hard to buy. Even harder is David Levinson, who might well be a genius, but he goes from being fall-down drunk to solving the crisis before dawn on July 4. His relationship with ex-wife Constance is completely canned and simply drags the movie down. The only purpose it serves is to get Levinson to the President. Once that is done, it simply becomes another annoying thread to be resolved.

ID4 has a pretty impressive cast, though that too is not without its serious problems. There are wonderful actors and actresses who get juicy and/or fun parts, including Brent Spiner as Dr. Okun, Adam Baldwin as Major Mitchell, Harvey Fierstein as Marty, James Rebhorn as Albert, May McDonnell as the first lady, and Vivica A. Fox as Jasmine. They are all wonderful and they are generally playing roles that they might not usually be associated with (with the obvious exception of Fierstein). Will Smith does fine as Captain Hiller and Jeff Goldblum does quite well at convincing the viewer he is a computer genius as David Levinson.

The two big acting problems come in the forms of Robert Loggia and Bill Pullman. Loggia spends the film acting like Gene Hackman - in one of his understated roles - as General Grey. Loggia does a great and unflinching Hackman impression throughout the entirety of the movie, but he adds nothing of his own unique zest to the role.

Bill Pullman is the dealbreaker as President Thomas Whitmore. Bill Pullman could pull off the role of President now, perhaps. In ID4, he fails to do that, not because of his age but because of his bearing. Watching Pullman in this movie suggests nothing of how the man could have possibly gotten to his position. In short, trying to imagine Whitmore running a campaign and actually winning an election stymies even those of us with an extensive political imagination.

The less said about Randy Quaid as Russell, the better, though one wonders if he gets tired of playing dumb hicks.

The shining acting gem in this movie is Judd Hirsch. Yes, in a film with acting sensations of the younger variety like Fox, Goldblum, Pullman and Smith, it is Hirsch who dominates every scene he is in. He's phenomenal as David's father Julius, slouching around with his heavy Jewish accent as a parody of the elderly Jew who may be annoying, but is always right. Hirsch is amazing in the role, though it doesn't take long for his character to start popping up in scenes that he has no legitimate business being in.

It may be longer, it may be older and it may be less violent and spectacle-filled, but V tops this movie and is much worthier of one's time and attention. It is smart, menacing and clever in all the ways that this movie should have been, but was not.

For other alien invasion films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
The X-Files: Fight The Future
Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters


5/10

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

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

Surprisingly Good And Less Funny, Tower Heist Holds Up Remarkably Well!

The Good: Engaging plot, Wonderful acting, Good tension/mood
The Bad: Light on character development, Moments where the humor is forced
The Basics: Tower Heist may have been misbilled as a comedy, but it is surprisingly smart with a wonderful cast performing well!


Lately, my wife has been going through my DVD collection and we've watched a lot of things I like. So, for a date night last night, I made sure to have some movies on hand that I thought she might enjoy. She is a fan of both Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy, yet we somehow managed to miss Tower Heist when it was in the theaters. I was open to the movie, especially because I am a bit of a fan of Alan Alda. So, last night, we sat down to a movie that we both figured would satisfy both of us, especially with my wife's love of comedies.

The first "problem" with Tower Heist is that it is not actually a comedy. I put problem in quotes because the advertising of the movie should not actually affect the film all that much. Sure, my wife and I sat down expecting a zany robbery comedy and we were instead treated to a surprisingly tense action-drama, but the strength of Tower Heist is that it was so engaging that we did not care. It is a very rare thing these days when we sit down for one type movie and discover it to be something else entirely that we are not horribly disappointed. But Tower Heist did not disappoint us. Instead, we found ourselves more excited by how the movie was developing. And the comedy that is in the movie, while mostly incidental, generally worked.

Josh Kovacs is the general manager of the Towers, a luxury apartment complex and the most expensive property in New York City. Each day, he arrives at work to tend to the staff and residents of the Towers with a strong sense of professionalism, despite working in a place he could never hope to afford to live in himself. One morning, he believes that the wealthiest resident, Arthur Shaw, is being abducted and he tries desperately to stop the abduction. As it turns out, Shaw was trying to escape the FBI, who arrests him for securities fraud. While Josh tries to keep the staff of the Towers professional, it does not take long for even Kovacs to suspect that Shaw may be guilty. This takes on a deeply personal aspect for Kovacs and the staff of the Towers when Kovacs reveals to the employees that he requested Shaw manage their pensions and now their entire life savings is frozen or missing altogether.

When the doorman, Lester, attempts to kill himself by throwing himself in front of a subway, Kovacs - who has had meetings with FBI Special Agent Denham who further implies the government has a case against Shaw - confronts Shaw. In the process, Kovacs does serious damage to Shaw's prized car and gets himself, Charlie and Enrique fired. Now, with nothing left to lose, Josh decides to get the staff's pension money back the best way he knows how; stealing it from the cash safety net that Denham implies all white collar criminals have. Kovacs assembles a team, including Slide, a smalltime criminal from his neighborhood, to break into the Towers and steal from Shaw.

Tower Heist was largely advertised as a buddy comedy with Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy and it does Brett Ratner's work a serious disservice to consider it that way. First, Murphy's character, Slide, is a comparatively minor character who truly only has a presence in the latter half of the film. Second, virtually every scene that actually features Murphy and Stiller together doing anything remotely like comedy is featured in the many trailers for the movie. Apparently, the advertising executives for Imagine thought that audiences would not be able to accept Ben Stiller or Eddie Murphy in roles where they are not being funny, despite Stiller's role in Envy (reviewed here!) and Murphy's role in Dreamgirls (though, truth be told, I've found very little of what Murphy has done in recent years to be funny). So, the first useful aspect of a consideration of Tower Heist is that it is not, actually, a comedy. It is far, far too serious for that and the comedy that does come up is mostly just to break the tension.

Tower Heist, instead, is a surprisingly engaging story of what happens when economics drives smart people to do bad things. Arthur Shaw is an exceptional antagonist. Never taking responsibility for his actions, he starts off Tower Heist with a friendly relationship with Josh. Even when he is first arrested, Kovacs is careful to trend more toward neutrality than suspicion. He is a rich man who covers his crimes well. He appears decent and even offers Kovacs future employment before his crimes are revealed. But the real greatness of how horrible the character is comes when he is arrested. He turns to Kovacs and the two begin playing a very different chess match than the games they play against one another online. Shaw's coolness and confidence and his lack of interest in Lester's condition reveal to Kovacs the man's inhumanity. From that point on, Kovacs is on a righteous cause.

In the process of achieving a larger sense of justice, Tower Heist argues that some lesser wrongs must be perpetrated. Kovacs is essentially a leader looking out for the needs of the many. By taking on Shaw and attempting to get Lester, Charlie, and everyone else's money back, Shaw becomes a modern day Robin Hood (which is alluded to within Tower Heist). What is so smart about the story written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson is that they are not monolithic in the characters they created.

Tower Heist may be very low on character development, but it is populated by characters who make sense and fit a very diverse sense of what the world is. So, for example, Mr. Fitzhugh is an investment banker who has had some serious bad luck with the economic downturn in the world and as a result is being evicted. Well before his eviction, he has sold off most all of his possessions in order to try to save his marriage and keep his children from finding out. It is only as a last resort that a man like that turns to crime and that is reflected perfectly in Fitzhugh's objections within Tower Heist. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is Slide, who has never pulled off a job anywhere near as sophisticated as the one Kovacs brings him in to do. So, when there is the possibility of success, he is predictably treacherous. He does not grow, change or develop in the course of the movie, he simply reveals more of who he was all along.

In fact, there is no real character development in Tower Heist. Kovacs is a leader, Charlie is a worried soon-to-be-father, Lester is a man who has lost everything and sees no chance of ever getting it back. All of the characters, as adults of their age and socioeconomic statuses, are predictably set in their ways. So, what Tower Heist helps to show is the power fairly normal people actually have. Ratner and the writers create a very satisfying morality play that works with Tower Heist.

Tower Heist is also notable for the performances. Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena, Tea Leoni and Judd Hirsch give memorable supporting performances. Eddie Murphy's role of Slide is essentially a supporting role as well and he is good as the fast-talking scam artist and balcony robber. Ben Stiller performs well. Actually, Stiller illustrates that he has all of the serious qualities to be a captain in the Star Trek franchise in Tower Heist. Far from being at all zany or utilizing his gift for physical comedy, in Tower Heist Stiller is physically restrained, articulate and he embodies a concerned leader expertly. Never before has Stiller appeared on screen as commanding as he does in Tower Heist.

But, it is Alan Alda who deserves the real acting kudos for Tower Heist. Usually good natured, Alda appears in Tower Heist as Arthur Shaw. Here is trades in his genial grandfather image for a cold, calculating white collar criminal who is as heartless as he is efficient. Anyone used to seeing Alan Alda as an articulate, emotive liberal needs to watch Tower Heist, for he convincingly becomes one of the most compelling and realistic villains on film in years as Shaw!

Now on Blu-Ray and DVD, Tower Heist comes with a bevy of entertaining bonus features. In addition to alternate endings and commentary tracks, there are behind-the-scenes featurettes of some of the movie's memorable sequences. The DVD of Tower Heist will give fans their money's worth! But during this time of economic instability, Tower Heist is a satisfying and engaging story of how men and women must fight for basic fairness in an economic scheme that is played on the most uneven playing field in history. Watching how much they accomplish makes Tower Heist both entertaining and deeply cathartic.

For other Brett Ratner works, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses
Skyline
X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Prison Break - Season 1
The Family Man

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for all the film reviews I have written!

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

| | |

Extraordinary And Awkward, Ordinary People Is A Drama Of Complex Emotions.

The Good: Exceptional acting, Interesting story, Great characters, Good direction, Everything!
The Bad: Light on DVD bonus features.
The Basics: An exceptional journey, Robert Redford's directoral debut plumbs the depths of human emotion with a family on the verge of a breakup following a son's death.


It has been a long time since I have seen a preview for a film and it has actually made me more excited about seeing the movie. Far too often, previews give away way too much of the film, especially contemporary previews. Half the time when I see a new movie, I feel cheated that I saw all of the best parts in the preview trailer. So, when I watched the preview trailer for Ordinary People on the DVD for that movie, it left me pleasantly surprised when I ended up absolutely loving the film. Despite the prevalence of scenes that were big dramatic moments being teased in the preview trailer, Ordinary People still proved itself to me to be an exceptional movie that deserved all of its many kudos.

Ordinary People is a strict drama where not much happens, save that people reveal themselves. At the same time, director Robert Redford uses the cinematic medium quite well. Despite presenting emotions and situations that might have worked as a stage play (Ordinary People was originally a novel), Redford uses a broader canvas shooting at multiple locations and including flashbacks and settings that make the broad human emotions being illustrated match his setting. As always under such circumstances, this is a review of the film Ordinary People, not the novel upon which it is based. As such, variances between the film and the book will not be explored as I have not even read the novel.

The Jarrett family is an upper class family that is struggling with staying together. The oldest Jarrett son, Buck, has recently died in a boating accident and a month after Con is released from a mental hospital because of his suicide attempt, Con's father Calvin encourages him to go see a psychiatrist. Unable to sleep because of his nightmares, Con reluctantly begins seeing Dr. Berger, much to Beth's (Con's mother) chagrin. As Con begins to come to terms with the feelings that led him to his suicide attempt, he quits the swim team and begins to romantically pursue his chorusmate, Jeannine Pratt.

But when Beth becomes aware that Con has quit the swim team, her anger pushes Con over the edge and Con tries to make Calvin aware of the rift between him and his mother. Calvin, seeing Dr. Berger himself, tries to reconcile his feelings of loss and he attempts to understand Beth himself. This culminates in Con understanding why he tried to kill himself and Beth and Calvin actually facing off over the death of Buck.

Ordinary People may well be one of the best difficult to watch films, right behind Magnolia (reviewed here!). Both films have awkward characters who are wrestling with difficult situations that keep them from living to their fullest potential. The fundamental difference is that while P.T. Anderson's magnum opus utilizes a massive cast and a wide tapestry of characters and situations, Redford's directoral debut is far more intimate. Ordinary People is very focused on three characters with Dr. Berger acting almost as a narrator in the film.

The result is a drama where people communicate and they deal with the consequences of their actions from before the film opened. The viewer is treated to a modest number of flashbacks that illustrate what life in the Jarrett household was like while Buck was alive and this becomes more than just a gimmick. Redford and authors Guest and Alvin Sargent have something worth saying and through the flashbacks, they expose the family blindness that Con asserts exists. Until the viewer is shown scenes where Beth clearly prefers Buck to Con (and Calvin) we only have the boy's word that that is the case. Through flashbacks, the audience comes to empathize with Con even more and even feel bad for Calvin for not recognizing the situation.

But this also offers the viewer a chance to empathize with Beth. Having lost her treasured son, her emotional reticence seems not only believable, but understandable. The viewer comes to feel that Beth, despite all of her quirks, has something very real working inside her heart.

Throughout Ordinary People, it is very easy for viewers to dislike Beth because she is awkward, emotionally withdrawn and exhibits an almost constant state of discomfort. This is the masterstroke of Mary Tyler Moore's acting. Moore plays Beth and entirely absent from her performance is any sense that she is the perky personality american audiences fell in love with. Instead, when she smiles it is painful to watch and there is a withdrawn quality to Moore's eyes that informs the viewer that this is not her default emotional state. Every delivery of every line Moore delivers is unsettling because there is such an emotional fracture that Moore is playing along. In fact, the only moments that Moore allows Beth to seem genuinely happy is in a flashback where Buck is present. This is unsettling considering that Calvin flashes back to a moment early in their relationship and there is still the sense that Beth is not as happy as she could be.

The human tragedy of Ordinary People is perfectly exemplified through Mary Tyler Moore's performance, but realized as well through Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Calvin and most notably through Timothy Hutton's performance as Con. Judd Hirsch gives a great portrayal of the psychiatrist Dr. Berger. Hirsch's performance is so good because there is no hint of humor, even in the moments when Berger is being confrontational. Indeed, the moment Hirsch proves his worth to the film is when he is sitting opposite Sutherland and Hirsch is the one who is magnetic and engaging.

It is Timothy Hutton who dominates the film as Con. Conrad is granted the lion's share of the focus in Ordinary People and Hutton is exceptional. From the first moment Hutton appears on screen, bleating out "Alleluias" in chorus, the viewer knows both that he is the protagonist and there is something deeply wrong with the character. Hutton's body language is that of a deeply traumatized youth the entire film and he has a mastery of the look of someone suffering from prolonged guilt. At the same time, he plays off each of his costars with an ease that makes him an instant professional worthy of the praises heaped upon him for his performance.

On DVD, Ordinary People comes only with the film's trailer and those who enjoy the movie will be left underwhelmed by the one-disc version. No doubt when this hits Blu Ray, a two-disc DVD with bells and whistles will be released. Until then, we're left with this. Fortunately, the source material is perfect, not necessitating more.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

For other drama reviews, please visit my reviews of:
The Red Violin
Gods And Monsters
Shutter Island

9.5/10

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

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


| | |

More Illness Than Math: Why A Beautiful Mind Didn’t Grab Me.

The Good: Interesting Characters, Generally Good Acting
The Bad: Intriguing Visuals Are Not Maintained, Plot Is Often Not Advancing.
The Basics: In a close call, A Beautiful Mind fails because its most intriguing parts tend not to be real and the aspects that are real fail to entertain or engage.


First off, I've never liked Russell Crowe. I thought his role in L.A. Confidential was the worst part of the film, I thought Gladiator was the worst nominee and worst film to get Best Picture in some time. So, when I sat down to A Beautiful Mind, I did not expect to enjoy it. While that changed, I still believe Peter Jackson and The Fellowship Of The Ring were robbed at the Oscars the year A Beautiful Mind made its debut.

A Beautiful Mind tells the story of mathematician John Nash, a paranoid-schizophrenic who starts out at Princeton. And yeah, we're not informed early on that he suffers from paranoid-schizophrenia. After that, Nash basically oscillates between having good days as a paranoid- schizophrenic (like the one where he goes out with Alicia, the woman who will become his wife) and bad days as a paranoid-schizophrenic (like the one where he nearly drowns his baby).

The problem is, that's all it is. Paranoid-schizophrenia is a serious disease. It's a horrible condition that affects millions of people worldwide. It's not terribly entertaining. So when John Nash's very cool government cipher-cracking job is revealed to be a figment of his paranoid-schizophrenia, the most interesting aspect of the film dissolves. And I'm afraid to say it, but it's the math.

If only the film had stuck with the mathematical aspects of John Nash. Or, hell, made a fiction as opposed to telling Nash's story. Instead of focusing on the brilliant mind that is able to see mathematical patterns and decipher obscure equations, the film degenerates into a "these are the hallucinations that come when a paranoid-schizophrenic stops taking his pills" film. And that's a fine type of film in itself, but not when the movie sets itself up as something different. That's false advertising.

The way A Beautiful Mind does this - and the reason I think Peter Jackson was robbed - is through a clever opening wherein visual stimuli that Nash perceives are related mathematically. It's clever and it's drawn out well. It's also a technique that disappears very quickly from the movie. The film loses its magic and then becomes something very different. Ron Howard begins the film with an eye for keeping things interesting, but he loses it quickly. Far superior was Peter Jackson's The Fellowship Of The Ring in telling a story and making it visually intriguing.

As for the acting, Russell Crowe has not fully redeemed himself in my eyes, but I cannot fault him for his performance here. He's not Tom Hanks caliber, by any means, but he does a good job as Dr. Nash. His acting comes through best when Nash begins to age and Crowe does a surprisingly good job mimicking the movements of an older person. It's almost enough to excuse his inconsistent, supposedly Virginian accent.

Jennifer Connelly does a great job as Alicia Nash, serving as an excellent, humanistic foil to a character who seems to be so different from who we are. She brings warmth and compassion beyond the simple words of the script to the part. She deserved her Oscar.

The rest, not so much. The film is too inconsistent, trying to be three things: an intriguing story, a hard-hitting narrative on paranoid-schizophrenia, and a biography. Dr. Nash is a real person. I salute the work he did to earn his Nobel Prize. The problem is, he accomplishes that in the first half hour of A Beautiful Mind. Everything between that and the last five minutes (second to last "chapter" if you have a DVD player) is just something confused and jumbled that's trying to balance three types of films. It ultimately fails to be entertaining, borders on the informative and is mostly unfulfilling. No movie over two hours ought to be unfulfilling.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available by clicking here!

For other films that bend reality, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
Dark City
Donnie Darko

4/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for a current listing of all I have reviewed!

© 2010, 2009, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |