Wes Anderson Creates The Best Slapstick Comedy Of All Time With The Grand Budapest Hotel!

The Good: Very funny, Wonderful acting, Engaging plot and characters, Impressive direction
The Bad: Needlessly complicated narrative technique, A number of the characters do not get developed due to the size of the cast
The Basics: Rightfully being called one of the best films of 2014, The Grand Budapest Hotel restores the reputation of Wes Anderson by creating an entertaining and enduring film!


When The Grand Budapest Hotel started to rack up award nominations this award’s season, I had the distinct feeling that the film was being treated as something of a “lifetime achievement award” for writer-director Wes Anderson. After all, Wes Anderson has made some masterful films, but after peaking with The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!), the argument can be pretty easily made that he has simply been rehashing and reworking that movie for at least his two subsequent works - The Life Aquatic Of With Steve Zissou (reviewed here!) and The Darjeeling Limited (reviewed here!). The only Wes Anderson film I have not seen is Moonrise Kingdom and my failure to give it attention was the result of disillusionment following his post-The Royal Tenenbaums films.

So, my expectations were low when I sat down to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel. In fact, my viewing The Grand Budapest Hotel was more an obligatory viewing due to my desire to watch all of the Best Picture Oscar nominees this year. So, when I come out singing the praises of The Grand Budapest Hotel and director Wes Anderson, it is because the film is truly that good. With Anderson’s distinctive sense of style and color and a cast made up mostly of alumni from his prior works, Anderson was given the seemingly daunting task of creating something new and memorable with The Grand Budapest Hotel. He, and his cast and production team, succeeded.

An author sits down and tells the story of his younger self having the story of Zubrowska’s famed Grand Budapest Hotel narrated to him. Moustafa tells the story of how, as a boy, he was a Lobby Boy at the Grand Budapest Hotel during the turbulent time when it was switching owners. The young Lobby Boy Zero befriends the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, M. Gustave. Gustave is a smart, efficient man who has been bedding the exceptionally wealthy Madame D. Madame D. dies abruptly and Gustave goes to her estate where he is surprisingly willed the famous painting Boy With Apple.

The priceless painting is coveted by Madame D.’s sons Dimitri and Jopling, as well as her three daughters. Gustave is framed by one of Madame D.’s servants as the man who killed Madame D. and he begins his run from the law. Unfortunately, he runs pretty much right away into the arms of Inspector Henckels, who has Gustave imprisoned. Gustave must rely upon the efforts of Zero to rescue him so they can sell the painting and live their lives. But Jopling is a homicidal maniac intent upon finding Gustave and his hunt starts to cut a swath of death through Zubrowska toward Gustave, Zero, and Zero’s fiancé, Agatha.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially a screwball comedy and Wes Anderson goes to great lengths to give the film a retro feel and sense of melodrama. What makes The Grand Budapest Hotel work so well is that Anderson mixes things like special effect “skips” and exaggerated movements with more contemporary color palates and incredible performances by some of the best actors working today. With such an extensive cast, Anderson is unable to use them all well; Tom Wilkinson’s part in The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially a cameo where he is not given the chance to plumb his performing depths. Similarly, Jude Law’s performance as the younger version of Wilkinson’s author character only has him on screen long enough to get the viewer into the narrative of M. Gustave and Zero, as opposed to forcing him to play anything impressive.

The story of The Grand Budapest Hotel is an engaging chase story that feels classic, but has a contemporary level of dialogue. Ralph Fiennes swears his way through The Grand Budapest Hotel and Willem Dafoe’s psychopathic Jopling is chilling in a way that early films would not have dared. In the chase, Gustave becomes a likable protagonist, as does Zero. Zero is given enough backstory to make him compelling – even if the love story of Zero and Agatha is somewhat contrived (it plays into a line about A to Z) and simple.

The performances in The Grand Budapest Hotel are appropriately exceptional. Jeff Goldblum is virtually unrecognizable as the lawyer Kovacs and Adrien Brody is similarly chameleonic as Dmitri. Tilda Swinton’s brief appearance on screen proves that The Grand Budapest Hotel should win a bevy of make-up awards. Even Saoirse Ronan gives a career high performance – her time on screen shows more range and genuine emotion than she did in the entirety of The Host (reviewed here!).

The surprise is how well Tony Revolori plays off Ralph Fiennes. Revolori is given a part that could easily be relegated to hapless sidekick, but in key moments, he steels his eyes and holds his own on screen with Fiennes. Revolori has on-screen panache that makes Zero distinct and the logical antecedent to F. Murray Abraham’s incarnation of the character.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of the few films in recent memory that ought to be seen and experienced as opposed to discussed. It is funny, stylish and original enough to decimate any assertion that its nominations are more for Anderson and his body of work than this specific film!

For other films with intriguing narrative techniques, please visit my reviews of:
Stranger Than Fiction
Memento
Adaptation.

9/10

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

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

An Action Movie With Santa As The Protagonist, Set During Easter Arrives In Time For Thanksgiving: Rise Of The Guardians Disappoints.

The Good: Great computer effects, Voice acting
The Bad: Blasé plot, Mediocre character development (after the initial establishment)
The Basics: Rise Of The Guardians is a very typical action adventure story that phones in everything but the effects and is a pretty obvious holiday cashgrab.


Given my early gripes with the trailer for Rise Of The Guardians (that article is here!), I went into the preview screening of Rise Of The Guardians surprisingly eager for the holiday film. Ironically, the film itself did not leave me with any issues about how it might traumatize childhood abuse victims. Instead, Rise Of The Guardians suffers from serious issues on the plot and character fronts that make it more dull than in any way impressive. I am a reviewer who is not at all wowed by effects – special effects are one point out of the ten point rating on my scale – so the latest Dreamworks visual epic does little for those looking for originality or substance.

Outside the use of characters who have – to the best of my knowledge – never been the subject of a team-up film, Rise Of The Guardians has little originality to it. The plot is derivative of virtually every superhero team-up film and the characters do not pop. Ultimately, Rise Of The Guardians left me feeling like I had watched a film that could have been released at virtually any time of year in order to cash in on holiday dollars. It just so happens that Dreamworks is banking on the Thanksgiving family dollars before it becomes utterly forgotten by the time The Hobbit and Les Miserables are theatrically released. Rise Of The Guardians is based upon a novel and it is worth noting that I have not read those books and thus, this is a very pure review of the film.

Mythical beings like Santa Claus (Nicholas St. North), the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny (E. Aster Bunnymund) continue to survive in today’s world through the beliefs of the children of the world. With Sandy (the Sandman) and the others, North monitors the world and the faith of children. When the Boogie Man (Pitch) decides to make a play for Earth, it appears he has a very real chance of success. Organized by North, he and the other beings search for a way to thwart the malevolent force.

Directed by the Man In The Moon, North starts a quest to find and recruit Jack Frost. Believing Frost can reignite the passions of children, North discovers that Frost is actually a bit more angsty than he figured. Working together, the mythical beings must thwart the Boogie Man and protect the children of the world.

Almost all of the potential audaciousness of Rise Of The Guardians is in the character designs and that means that within a minute of each character’s appearance on screen, the novelty of the film is over. After that, Rise Of The Guardians quickly degenerates into a remarkably typical and formulaic action-adventure film. Rise Of The Guardians is essentially The Avengers (reviewed here!) without witty dialogue, live-action special effects and characters who the audience is actually invested in. In fact, Rise Of The Guardians might well have served as the best possible illustration of how The Avengers could have utterly tanked had the cinematic fanbase already been huge based on the six Marvel films that preceded it.

While Jack Frost has a nominal character arc as he seeks his purpose for existence, it is hardly a deep or complicatedly developed arc, Rise Of The Guardians is far more concerned with spectacle and plot progression than it is with actual character development. Rise Of The Guardians is child-appropriate, but many of the young people at the screening I attended seemed as bored with it as I did. In the end, Rise Of The Guardians is not going to be the next Shrek-like franchise that explodes for Dreamworks; it may well be the most forgettable endeavor Dreamworks Animation releases.

For other Dreamworks Animation films, please check out my reviews of:
Rango
Rio
How To Train Your Dragon
Shrek Forever After
MegaMind
Shark Tale
Shrek

4/10

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.
| | |

After Years Of Being Encouraged To View,I Sit Down And Fail To Enjoy The Holiday.

The Good: Moments (infrequent) of acting, Moments of charm
The Bad: Utterly predictable, Much of the character elements, Light on DVD bonus features, Acting
The Basics: In The Holiday, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz lead a decent cast, almost universally performing poorly, in a boring, terribly predictable romantic comedy.


My mother has been on me to watch The Holiday for the last two years. In fact, it might be the very first movie she finished watching and insisted right away that I sit down and watch. I have been busy, between writing novels and reviewing movies that I want to review, but lately a break in my schedule and supply ran out, so I decided to give my mother's beloved movie a chance.

Nancy Meyers, who directed Something's Gotta' Give (reviewed here!) and What Women Want (reviewed here!), two movies I found terribly average, returns to write and direct this Christmas-themed romantic (alleged) comedy. I was largely underwhelmed by the movie, most notably by the acting. It seemed like all of the actors had moments they were decent in, until the moments they were used in familiar ways (save Kate Winslet, who was fine throughout). But for the most part, this is a predictable, obvious romance movie with predictable pairings and a pretty obvious resolution.

Iris Simpkins is working with the love of her life at a publication where she writes about society's great weddings. She is hopelessly in love - in an unrequited way - with Jasper Bloom, with whom she flirts and swaps Christmas gifts up until the moment that he abruptly announces he is engaged to be married to someone else. Devastated, Iris looks to flee. This, conveniently enough, occurs more or less at the same time that movie trailer maker Amanda Woods breaks up with her long-term boyfriend for an affair she suspected he had and soon confirms for her. Looking to get out of Los Angeles, she finds a place in Surrey, England, to swap houses with and the person she is swapping with happens to be Iris. As Iris goes to Los Angeles to a much bigger, luxurious place, Amanda finds herself in a cozy cottage in Surrey where there is nothing to do but wrestle with her personal demons.

In Amanda's house and neighborhood, Iris encounters the film composer Miles, but seems even more drawn to the elderly writer in the neighborhood, Arthur Abbott, who she rescues while he is wandering one day. As Iris avoids Jasper, she helps Arthur get into shape for an award's ceremony in his honor and discovers Miles is charming and less attached than he initially seems. Amanda, thrilled to be away from Ethan, finds herself in the company of Graham, who appears to be something of a womanizer . . . until Amanda meets the women in his life and realizes things have become complicated between them!

The Holiday starts slow, develops to boring and ends lackluster. In fact, the only parts of the movie worth watching are the moments between Iris and Arthur. Here's why: those parts of the movie use the cast in the best possible way and eliminate most of the problems the film possesses. They move, they have character elements that make sense (sort of) and the actors and acting in them are decent. Viewed out of context of the rest of the movie, even the problematic aspects of those scenes work.

Arguably the best moment of the film, the moment that actually has something original and different to say, in The Holiday comes in one of the scenes between Arthur and Iris. That moment has Arthur evaluating Iris as the "best friend" role in her own life. It is a decent monologue and a great concept and Iris latches onto it. The problem is, it doesn't fit Iris's character. Arthur gets it right; she is not the leading lady in her own life, but she isn't even the best friend; she is a non-speaking supernumerary (background performer). Iris is such a nonentity and there is so little interest paid in the way she is painted from the outset that her portions are painful and boring to watch up until the time that Arthur comes into the movie to share the screen with her.

Romantic comedies do not necessarily have to trade on surprise, so predictability in a movie like The Holiday is not necessarily devastating. But in this case, everything is predictable and it is unpleasant how simple the writer and director assumes the audience is. While the mood at the outset is interesting and appropriately painful, at least in the Iris/Jasper relationship, the film soon fails to trade on even that intrigue. As a result, Miles and Iris come together simply by the virtue that they are proximate to one another at the holidays. Neither one seems emotionally intelligent. Come to think of it, neither does Graham, who latches right on to Amanda, who has just ended a five-year relationship.

In the movie filled with people who are otherwise smart, but appear to be emotional idiots, the least interesting characters are Amanda Woods and Ethan. Amanda excising Ethan works, but the resulting need to get away makes little sense to those schooled in the way of psychology hardly seems real. For sure, there is no one way to react to trauma and change, but Amanda gets rid of Ethan, cuts a perfect trailer (which was one of the problems Ethan had with her) and flees rather than bury herself in her work. If the movie had even had a single scene where she wore out her workers cutting films before she was forced to take a vacation, the character would have worked much, much better.

That said, the only truly interesting man in the movie is Arthur, largely because he is the character that seems to be best acted (an irony, considering that Arthur is probably much closer to actor Eli Wallach than any of the other actors are to their characters). The problematic aspects of the movie are all exploded by the acting. Edward Burns and Rufus Sewell are strangely bland in their roles as rejected male love interests. Jude Law and Jack Black both have moments where they are decent, but those moments fade ridiculously quickly when both of them fall back on their standards. Law is fine up until the moment where he is expected to give the Jude Law Penetrating Look #5 that is supposed to make all of the women swoon and . . . completely does not fit his character of Graham.

Similarly, Jack Black is either stuck into his same niche or the part was altered when he was cast or the role of Miles was written with him in mind. I write this because Black is great up until a scene in a video store with Winslet. Miles - up until that point - has been friendly, but serious and grounded and the role had Jack Black actually acting. But in that scene, he begins singing various scores from movies and his character never recovers from that. Yes, it is after that that the scene from the trailer with the "brushing the boob" line comes up and that is a perfectly Jack Black delivery. Unfortunately, it is not in character for Miles so much as it is Black.

At least Jack Black is given the moments to play before his character or performance turn south. Cameron Diaz is not even given that chance. Instead, she starts off with the same bug-eyed, momentarily spastic performance she has become known for and she never pulls herself out of it. This is not even for a moment a stretch for her as an actress and it is reminiscent of several prior roles of hers.

The only actress who seems to hold it together is Kate Winslet, who is decent as Iris, though the character is far more boring than Arthur or Miles ever admits. Winslet is good, but the role is not great.

This is, perhaps, emblematic of the entire movie. The Holiday is a ridiculously simple pitch concept: two women swap houses and fall in love with people in their new setting as a result. The problem is it never becomes more than that and it is not a great concept even with that. On DVD, there are previews for other movies and a commentary track with writer/director Nancy Meyers that I was not bored or interested enough to subject myself to. There are plenty of other movies out there I would rather devote my time and energy to.

For other works with Eli Wallach, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Mystic River
Keeping The Faith

4.5/10

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

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

Wooden Acting Almost Kills A Political Marvel With All The King’s Men

The Good: Generally good acting, story and character
The Bad: Dilution of main story by focus on Jack Burden, pacing
The Basics: When Jude Law's acting and his character's story begin to dominate All The King’s Men, the film goes from a promising political drama to a murky romantic mystery.


Whenever I write a movie review, I load up the IMDB to be sure I'm getting character and actor names correct. I was somewhat surprised - mostly from not having paid enough attention to the opening credits, I suppose - to see that Kate Winslet and Mark Ruffalo were portraying Anne and Adam Stanton for the latest movie I was watching. Winslet only recently appeared on my radar and my first movie with Mark Ruffalo did not impress me with him. All The King’s Men, which opens to a powerful soundtrack by James Horner, continues my rut where actor Jude Law fails to impress me. Here it is his portrayal of Jack Burden along with writer and director Steven Zaillian and novelist Robert Penn Warren's emphasis on Burden that almost sinks this movie.

Willie Stark is a populist advocate working in county politics in Louisiana when he is opposed by the powers that be in the political world. A government contract is given to a company that makes a schoolhouse that has inadequate fire escapes, leading to the death of three children. This inspires mobster Tiny Duffy to use Stark as a chance to effectively take the Governor's mansion of Louisiana, which in the late 40s, early 50s, is quite a big deal. Stark begins a campaign based on winning over the poor of the state and wins in a landslide. Once in power as Louisiana's governor, he finds himself blocked by the state senate and threatened with impeachment.

Mirroring Stark's rise to power is Jack Burden's journey as a reporter to a spin doctor for the governor. Burden's journey becomes a loop between his past and present as one of the advocates for impeachment is an incredibly powerful judge who happens to be Burden's (non-biological) father. As well, Stark becomes closely involved with the Stanton family, peers of Jack's who have integrity and social standing and who could potentially elevate Stark's political populism and activism to a respectable level.

The problem here is from the beginning the viewer wants this to be Willie Stark's story. Stark is intriguing as a character. The moment he casts off the mob influence and becomes a charismatic politician combining the progressive activism with the evangelical salesmanship by simply telling the truth as he sees it, Stark is a powerful character to watch. Whenever the movie is focused on his quest against the powers that be, All The King’s Men is engaging, intriguing and worthwhile.

The problem is that the film too infrequently focuses on Stark. While the first hour is all about Stark coming to power and his views and ambitions, the last hour plus of All The King’s Men degenerates into a convoluted tale of Jack Burden's trials as he seeks to aid Stark and resolve long unresolved romantic feelings.

As a political story, All The King’s Men succeeds. The problem is, Jack Burden's story is barely political. Burden becomes a detective, digging into the life of Judge Irwin to find any dirt he can to bring Irwin down to alleviate the impeachment pressure on Stark. As this is going on, Stark is busy fighting to get a hospital built for poor people in Louisiana, which needs the appearance of legitimacy. That comes from Dr. Adam Stanton who Stark - via Burden - influences to become a part of the project. The proximity of Adam, a childhood friend of Burden's, and the reappearance of his sister Anne, perhaps his great lost love, cause Burden to relive his past.

And Burden's past is not terribly interesting. Or perhaps it is, but this is not the venue for it. I don't care about Burden's lost love, it's a distraction from the Willie Stark story. Arguably, Burden's story could be all about what a man will do to maintain political power, but it's not nearly as compelling as watching Stark do his thing.

Willie Stark is played with electrifying precision by Sean Penn, one of those actors who suddenly came into legitimacy a few years back and has been a dramatic powerhouse since. Penn is surprisingly charismatic as Stark, manipulating his voice and body language with persuasive movement that make it convincing that Stark could work the crowds we see in the movie. This is one of Penn's best works and he steals every scene he is in.

Conversely, Jude Law is wooden as Jack Burden. "Wooden" describes Law's acting in almost every role and here it is not appropriate for Burden to be so . . . listless, stiff. Law's performance puts Burden at a distance to the viewer, making one care less about his journey and personality and instead causing the viewer to beg for the return of Penn's Stark to the screen.

All The King’s Men is supported by a decent cast including Sir Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, and James Gandolfini. Gandolfini seems typecast into the role of Tiny, but otherwise the supporting players are fine and they perform well with what they are given to do in this film.

Who will like All The King's Men? Certainly those frustrated with today's current political state. But they are less likely to enjoy this than The American President (reviewed here!) or reruns of The West Wing (reviewed here!). This movie is more suited to those who like murky romantic mysteries with a political edge. All of the important plot aspects turn on love and that's a fine motivation and makes for a decent story. Unfortunately, this story is not that one, not the way it is set up from the beginning and established in the opening parts of the film.

At least Mark Ruffalo and Kate Winslet did well.

For other works with James Gandolfini, check out my reviews of:
Where The Wild Things Are
In The Loop

6/10

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

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

| | |

Cold Mountain Is Another Sad Southern Perspective On The Civil War

The Good: Peripheral characters and actors
The Bad: Dull leads, Boring story, Pacing
The Basics: Worthwhile only for the peripheral characters and actors, Cold Mountain is a long, disappointing Southern Civil War story.


Have you ever noticed how the majority of movies on the American Civil War take place from the Southern perspective? It's almost as if the South is obsessed with the Civil War and their loss that they just cannot get over it. Instead, they seek to recapture something from that time. Cold Mountain recaptures the oppression and ruthlessness of the South as it rebelled against the North.

In the little town of Cold Mountain, North Carolina, little southern belle Ada Monroe waits for her love Inman to return to her. While she waits, her home is menaced by Home Guard, the Southerners who didn't go off to fight "Northern Aggression" and instead stayed home and harassed the locals. Ada is aided by the appearance of Ruby Thewes, who helps her out around her property in exchange for room and board. Inman, for his part, becomes mortified by the killing on the front lines and heads home in a weird odyssey that is nowhere near as entertaining as, say, O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Cold Mountain suffers, first and foremost, by its cast. Jude Law, as appealing as he is supposed to be, is exceptionally bland and a pretty terrible actor. He wasn't charismatic in A.I. (reviewed here!), he's only vaguely interesting here. In fact, of the main three in the cast, Law is the high point. When he journey's home and looks rugged and bearded and un-Jude Law-like, his acting ability comes out and he is able to deliver some performances that are respectable, most notably the subtlety of his scene near the end where he turns back toward the road (to reveal more of the scene would expose more of the plot than you should know).

It is always a mystery to me how Best Supporting Actress is chosen. Rene Zellweger won the award for her performance in this and I was left thinking she had Kim Bassinger Syndrome. KBS is a rare affliction whereby an actress with a minimal role in a film somehow is granted great recognition for the role, when it was relatively minor (like Kim Bassinger's role in L.A. Confidential). My personal belief is that Zellweger won solely on the strength of her delivery of the "rain speech;" for the rest of the film she is so distantly behind Kidman and Law that "Supporting Actress" is something of an overstatement. If you're disturbed by Zellweger's squinting and whining, this is not the movie for you. Her brief performance includes one or both in every frame.

Kidman rounds out the main cast playing the dull and uninspired Ada who is only of real interest so long as her father (played well by Donald Sutherland) is in the flick. Kidman's character has little character and Kidman's performance is weakened by the fact that - as a weak character - she must play off other people to define herself. As a result, much of Kidman's performance is simply reacting, not actually imbuing the character with, well, character.

In contrast to the dull, plodding main characters and the uninspired performances by the leads, the supporting cast is pretty wonderful with a great array of actual characters. The always-wonderful Brendan Gleeson plays Ruby's father and as a credit to his acting ability, manages to portray him without even a hint of his 28 Days Later character. Gleeson reminds us how good character actors can be.

Supporting the film as well are Ethan Suplee, as the tragic Pangle, Jack White, as the musician Georgia, Kathy Baker as Sally - a role that redeems her tired performance as "hook lady" from Boston Public, Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reverend Veasey - a fugitive to accompany Inman, and Donald Sutherland as Reverend Monroe. These characters are each more interesting than the main three and quite well-portrayed by their respective actors. Kathy Baker, for example, plays exceptionally well outside the special effects to make her pallor and near-death quite vivid and real.

But so much of Cold Mountain hinges on plot and it's not terribly compelling. After the first group of people are tormented or killed for harboring deserters or being a deserter, we understand how harsh the Home Guard is. The repetition of it simply fills time and delays the obvious conclusion to the movie. And the serious problem is that those characters we care the most for are so briefly in the movie before they are snuffed out.

It's basically a "soldier makes his way home from war and encounters obstacles" film. And intermingled with that is a "women at home fighting in their own way" story. The latter story suffers because the women are not interesting or particularly strong; indeed, Ada is almost entirely defined by her waiting for Inman and thus seeks her definition from a man. Consequently, the other half suffers because it does not take long before the viewer begins to wonder, "Why is Inman working so hard to get home to such a dull woman?" And Inman's own lack of genuine personality is confusing as well. We have a dull man determined to make it home to a woman who defines herself based on him, resulting in a cyclical motion of complete boredom.

Blood and guts fans will enjoy the battle scenes and Cold Mountain sadly has a scene of rural living involving the exsanguination of a goat that is very realistic and almost more tragic than the human costs of the movie. In short, though, this is a tired, tiresome movie, without anything truly new and led by characters and actors that were overpaid for their performances they failed to deliver on.

For other works featuring Natalie Portman, check out my reviews of:
Thor
No Strings Attached
Black Swan
The Other Woman
The Darjeeling Limited
V For Vendetta
The Star Wars Saga

4/10

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

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Too Close To The Reference Sinks The Attempt At Nostalgia That Is Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow!

The Good: I like the title
The Bad: Characters and plot is canned, Effects, Acting
The Basics: When writer-director Kerry Conran created a parody or recreation of the 1930s sci-fi serials, like Flash Gordon, he fell short of either.


There is an episode of The Simpsons that I have loathed for quite some time. Quite early in the series, The Simpsons did an episode where they showed clips from upcoming spin-off series', the last of which was "The Simpson Smiletime Variety Hour." It was a parody of the Sonny and Cher or Lawrence Welk style shows. The reason I loathe the episode is because that act so closely imitates what it is parodying, it becomes it. That is, instead of being an effective gag on the concept, it becomes all the worst parts of that type of show. Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow is essentially the same thing, with the campy serialized sci-fi movies of the 30s as its subject.

When New York City is invaded by giant robots that steal a power generator, it appears the world is under attack by a force quite unlike anything the world has seen. In desperation, the military calls in the Sky Captain to fight off the robots and learn the truth behind them. With intrepid reporter Polly Perkins, technical sidekick Dex and his British counterpart Franky along, Joe - the Sky Captain - journeys from high in the sky to under the sea almost to outer space to discover the truth.

And it's not worth it.

Like that episode of The Simpsons, Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow creates something that exposes all the weaknesses of what it is calling back to by imitating them. And because the story needs to work, the writer/director Kerry Conran becomes trapped in the conventions of the story he is telling with the characters he is telling. The problem here is that the choice Conran is force to make is either to defy the conventions of the serialized hero movies and basically mortgage the audience on the idea that the first half of the movie was a parody or stick with the conventions and recreate a cinematic experience that is neither suspenseful nor unpredictable and basically subject the audience to an ultimately droll experience.

Conran seems unsure which way to go, in that on the story and character front, Conran takes the latter option. Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow is a modern-day 1930s serial. It's silly, it's campy, it's predictable. It is laced with cliches and the actors are forced to play within them in order to tell the story as it is written. It feels inorganic, none of the characters pop out of their molds and this is truly unspectacular. Add to that, the annoyance of the music (which, admittedly should be in the "effects" column). It is soaring and completely telegraphs the emotions the movie is trying to evoke (that is to say on its own, the story and characters are not creating an emotional resonance, so the music tells the viewer how they ought to be feeling). Down to the punchline ending of the movie, this film is a predictable, faithful recreation of a style of storytelling that we are well beyond. In short, our society (surprisingly) has become sophisticated enough where we can handle stories that are more intelligent, character driven, realistic and genuinely adventurous than what the '30s audiences seemed to go for in this genre.

The problem is that while Conran remains faithful in the story and characters to the genre, his attempts with the effects that the route of mortgaging the faithfulness of the look and feel of the serials. The movie opens with a wonderful grainy quality, as if the movie were a black and white film that had been colorized. There is a washed out quality to the lighting that instantly transforms recognizable actors and actresses into heroes from days of yore. The problem is that while the lighting and grain quality is generally consistent, the mold gets broken in some of the battle sequences with clearly current special effect techniques. Those moments wrench the viewer out of the experience and beg the question, if you were trying to update the 30s serials, why didn't you go all the way? That is, what is the point of recreating the look and feel (through effects) of the old serial movies when you're just going to throw in a clearly computer-generated skeleton of a scientist who was just electrocuted? Moreover, the final sequences are ludicrously current in look and feel, which then makes the hammy overacting of the principles troubling.

There is not much to say on the character front. The Sky Captain is the Hero, Polly Perkins is the independent woman who still needs the hero to matter, and Dex and Franky are just types that play off those two archetypes. Unfortunately, this also means that there is little to say on this movie on the acting front. Perhaps it would have worked better if the bit part Angelina Jolie had had been credited as a surprise cameo as opposed to one of the three top-billed actors in the movie. She is barely in the film. Jude Law plays Joe and the truth is, I'm just realizing I can't remember ever liking a part he's played. Here he plays the role, but it is not an excessive challenge, it's an extended schtick.

Gwyneth Paltrow just made me sad for taking this role. There are moments she seems to be having fun and perhaps that's a good enough reason to take the part; it's fun. I suppose when you're rich, you can take a couple of months to shoot a movie essentially as play. The problem is, this film makes no real use of her talents.

There's a moment midway through this catastrophe that Paltrow as Perkins glares at Joe in an annoyed fashion. That exact expression mirrored how I felt about the movie at that point.

For other works with Bai Ling, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Angel - Season 1
Star Wars: Revenge Of The Sith
Southland Tales
Lost - Season 3

3/10

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

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

I Might Be The Only One Not Enchanted By Hugo

The Good: Look, Theme
The Bad: Erratic Look, Character, Acting, Pacing, Dull Plot
The Basics: Hugo is a slow, unimaginative, film that never quite gets going.


When this year's Oscars aired, I found myself losing many of my bets. Every year, I get a little thrill off of betting on the various categories and this past year, I kept finding myself on the losing end of the wagers (even if this year they were mostly friendly bets between my wife and I). The source of my losses (though she lost even more than I!) was that I continued to bet on pretty much anything but Hugo or The Artist in virtually every category. Unfortunately for me, Hugo won quite a few awards, which saw me betting wrong. So, tonight, I decided to see what all the fuss was about and my wife and I took in Hugo.

Hugo is Martin Scorsese's attempt to make a movie his children would be able to watch and I have to wonder why his children would want to watch such an unspeakably boring movie. I mean, I have a love of fantasy and the fantastic, but it's entirely possible to make a movie where children discover the magic of the world and the world around them and make the film interesting. Hugo, alas, is not that film. With a quest that oscillates between the boring and the pointless, Hugo is very much a children's movie, but one that never seems to land. Instead, it is a film that seems to be about finding magic in the world, but it is packaged in a disappointingly slow, meandering film that is too mundane to be truly fantastic.

Young Hugo Cabret lives in the clockworks at the Paris train station. There, as an orphan, he keeps the clocks running and steals the parts he needs to make an automaton function and the food he needs to stay alive. Hounded by the station inspector and threatened by Melies, the owner of the toyworks, Hugo desperately works to get the automaton working, as it was the last thing he and his father worked on together. With the help of Isabelle, Melies's goddaughter, Hugo looks deeper into the mystery of the unfinished mechanical man.

When Isabelle's key necklace allows the automaton to be wound up, the pair discover that the automaton draws. But the mystery deepens when it signs the drawing "Georges Melies." As Hugo struggles to avoid the station inspector, Gustav, he works to reanimate the automaton and discover its relation to Isabelle's godfather . . . and his own father.

Hugo is, in part, a movie about the love of movies. Unfortunately, the movie is very erratic. From the opening shots, where the setting appears animated, the film wanders between a pointless series of chases and a series of vignettes that express a love of movies. Hugo sneaks Isabelle into her first movie, the automaton's drawing is of a frame from the first film Isabelle's father saw and while Gustav poorly flirts, Hugo recounts a history of early movies. The movie could truly be about finding magic in the mundane, save that elements like Gustav's relentless hunting of Hugo is painfully realistic. The story seems much more sloppy than in any way incredible. Hugo is like a boring version of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (reviewed here!). At least A.I. had a clear purpose, even if it undermined itself.

In Hugo, Martin Scorsese wanders and the result is a film that is full of melodrama - Hugo's tantrums as he tries to recover the book that seems to have the clues to fixing the automaton from Melies wear thin - and distractions to what seem like the movie's sense of purpose. For a master filmmaker, Scorsese seems unsure of what the story he wants to tell is. Moreover, he does not seem to know how he want to tell it. Is it a story of the triumph of love, the magic of the movies, a generic adventure with classic villains, the story of how children grow up, who the heck knows? But more than that, the pacing is very slow and fails to capture the enthusiasm of youth. Instead, Hugo is somewhat tortured and trapped in his own anguish and Isabelle is more antagonistic and pedantic than an interesting sidekick.

As for the acting, Asa Butterfield does Hugo no rich services as the title character. To be fair, he is a child actor, playing a kid and he is awkward and stiff through much of the film. While Chloe Grace Moretz has not even a hint of her character from Kick-Ass (reviewed here!) as Isabelle, she does not make Isabelle very interesting at all. In the scene where Isabelle experiences her first movie, she opens her eyes wide like children are "supposed" to, but she seems like what she is; a girl putting on an air. That's not the character, that's the acting.

Sir Ben Kingsley does what he can as Melies. For such a refined actor, he is relegated to a surprisingly monolithic role. Kingsley does best with depth and subtlety and Melies does not start that way at all. He is angry and even Kingsley cannot sustain generically angry in an interesting way. Surprisingly, Sir Ben Kingsley is trumped on the acting front by Sacha Baron Cohen. Cohen, best known for his absolutely zany roles, plays Gustav and he actually has quite a bit of depth in the role which is tangential to the primary story. Sacha Baron Cohen plays shy surprisingly well in Hugo and as little as I liked the character and plot thread, his performance is one of the best of his career.

It is not, however, enough to save Hugo. Hugo is a children's movie made far too dull to entertain or inspire even a child.

For other works with Sacha Baron Cohen, check out my reviews of:
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Da Ali G Show

2.5/10

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

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

| | |

Steven Spielberg's Argument Against Having Children . . . Or Robots: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence!

The Good: Essentially good philosophical question, Some acting
The Bad: Overly graphic, Thematically heavy-handed, Characters that are difficult to connect with, Loses focus
The Basics: The MPAA drops the ball on not rating this nightmarish fairy tale “R.” Otherwise, there is little of note here.


It did not take watching A.I. or Artificial Intelligence long to realize that Steven Spielberg was the wrong director for this movie. At best, no other director could be accused of trying to capitalize on the same type feelings as E.T, at worst, no other director would be a target for trying so desperately to make a hit film. Artificial Intelligence fails to be as simply endearing as E.T. was upon its release and too pointlessly graphic and needlessly complicated to be the real hit that he wanted.

When Henry Swinton believes he has found the solution to his wife's heartbreak over their son's apparent coma, he purchases a robot (mecha) that has the ability to love her without question. David, the mecha, takes a while to endear himself to Monica and eventually, she begins to return his affection. When her biological son reanimates, there is natural conflict between the two children and Monica decides to abandon David. David, unalterably programmed to love Monica, begins a search for the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio in an attempt to become human. In the process, he flees the most dangerous element of humanity, the Flesh Fair, and journeys to the submerged Manhattan to try to become human.

First of all, if you are not a fan of Pinocchio-type stories, this will be a huge let down for you. Essentially, it is a souped up fairy tale with all the simplicity and none of the charm. Haley Joel Osment does a fine job portraying David with simplistic, childlike wonder, but there is no magic in his performance. There's no spark of joy in him, which makes watching Osment's David difficult.

If you read my reviews, you will no I am not a prude for most of the things Conservatives decry are wrong with movies. I was disappointed at how sexually graphic Henry And June (reviewed here!) wasn't and the ultra-violent "Empok Nor" rates as one of the best Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes in my book. That said, the MPAA completely dropped the ball when it came to rating this movie. Whatever dolts at the MPAA slapped a PG-13 on this movie instead of an "R" deserved to be fired.

Why? A significant portion of Artificial Intelligence happens at a Flesh Fair. The Flesh Fair is basically a bunch of hicks getting together and tearing apart robots. In the scene, we see a robot shot from a cannon, through a ring of fire and into a jet engine where it is destroyed, another is drawn and quartered before our eyes and yet another is melted completely with acid. The purpose of the scene is to illustrate what monsters humans have become in relation to their servants. This horrific scene immediately follows a scene wherein a dump truck of already destroyed robots attempt to reconstruct themselves and includes such things as one robot tearing jaws off other dead droids to find one that fits. The problems of these scenes are twofold. 1. They do what they do exceptionally well, to the point of being overbearing, oppressive and gross. In the robot dump scene, we see quite comprehensively how poorly the robots have been treated and any viewer with a brain is going to feel the sense of injustice and "get" that this situation is absolutely wrong. The scene that follows with the chase and torture of robots is therefore unnecessary. Add to that, the scene is supposed to illustrate how inhumanely the robots are being treated by showing their torture and we are to understand how wrong that is. The MPAA completely dropped the ball on this one in that it uses the excuse that the beings being tortured are simply inanimate objects to justify showing things it would never allow to be illustrated with human beings. Thus, the MPAA is desensitized, becoming in itself a flesh fair. It is unethical and desensitizing to allow such graphic torture to be shown, especially to youngsters and the idiocy of the MPAA's decision to rate this PG-13 is that the robots are, of course, humans in actuality! The second problem is both of these intense, graphic scenes of dismemberment, torture and destruction are too long. We get the thesis of the scenes. They feel like the Ripley Clone Room scene in Alien Resurrection (reviewed here!) - we got it, get on with it.

Following the disgusting and inappropriately rated Flesh Fair scene, the movie falls completely into chaos. The comic relief provided by Jude Law's character Gigolo Joe wears thin immediately such that the viewer is not disappointed by his rapid exit from the movie soon after. Then the movie descends into a weird fairy tale involving massive passages of time and alien beings.

The problem, ultimately, with Artificial Intelligence is that it does not seem to know what it wants to be. Too often, it is an oversimplified fairy tale. Other moments, however, it rises to a wrenchingly graphic and adult portrayal of ostracization and loneliness. In the end, none of the characters come alive. David is simplistic and monotonous, Monica is pretty much the worst mother ever, Joe is a one trick joke, and Professor Allen Hobby, who has great potential as a philosopher somehow loses his way in the last scenes we see of him. His philosophical quest motivates the movie, yet his actions at the end are inexplicable; until he knew the outcome of the David experiment, why would he start other such experiments?

In contrast to the characters, the acting is halfway decent. Almost redeeming the movie are the performances of William Hurt, who plays Hobby as intelligent and compassionate, and Haley Joel Osment, who earns his fee easily with his weird, robotic performance of David. The contrast between the warmly emotional Hurt and the quirky, quasi-dispassionate Osment works quite well.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to save this movie. It lacks serious direction other than trying to prove that the responsibility one would have to an artificial life form is the same as one would have to a biological entity, but that is proven rather quickly. The lack of purpose through much of the movie is complicated by a situation devoid of empathetic characters and ruined by an unnecessarily gruesome set of scenes that defy good taste. If you want a better time making an ethical argument over robots, I strongly recommend "Measure Of A Man" from Star Trek The Next Generation's second season. They say that if a movie resonates emotionally with you, it's good regardless; I say if it resonates only in that it makes you nauseous and others when you describe it, it's garbage. There's no antacid that counteracts the Flesh Fair and only sadness that 28 Days Later's Brendan Gleeson was a part of it.

For other big science fiction films, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Bicentennial Man
Inception
Minority Report

3.5/10

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

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

Marion Cotillard Makes Music Appear And The Strengths Are The Same As The Weaknesses Of Contagion!

The Good: Realistic presentation of the effect of a plague throughout various facets of society, Acting.
The Bad: Realistic presentation of the effect of a plague throughout various facets of society, Pacing.
The Basics: Contagion does what it sets out to do extraordinarily well, but in the process creates a movie so far from entertaining as to be impossible to recommend.


Over the summer, there were very few preview trailers for movies that actually excited me and made me think "I'd like to see that!" One of the few was Contagion which had a more engaging teaser than The Dark Knight Rises. But now, having gotten back from the screening of the film, I am finding I have remarkably little to say, though I am content to begin with the idea that the trailer makers cut the trailer to make the film look much more engaging, tense and fast paced than the movie ever came close to being. This is not 28 Days Later (reviewed here!) where things happen fast and there are quick reversals and a pounding sense of tension throughout.

In fact, Contagion is boring. Someone had to say it and I am fine with it being me. The movie is great at what it does - with one niggling exception - and as a result, creates a reality that is so close to our reality that it becomes tiresome exceptionally quickly. Writer Scott Z. Burns explores the worldwide phenomenon of a disease and he and director Steven Soderbergh explore every major conceivable category of people. This makes for a realistic, documentary feel to the film, but a movie with characters so largely underdeveloped that it is impossible to invest in the fate of any of them.

Contagion explores the 144 days of a highly infectious disease that wipes out tens of millions of people. This film is populated by various strata which include: an immune private citizen, the head of the Centers for Disease Control, a CDC field operative, a World Health Organization worker, a blogger, the head of Homeland Security in the U.S., two doctors, and a translator for the epidemiologist. To give each of the perspectives, each is robbed of their quirks or enough airtime to actually be worth empathizing with. To wit, Marion Cotillard's character, the WHO epidemiologist Leonora Orantes, falls out of the film from Days 14 through Day 133 (or more, I stopped taking notes at that point). She is not missed, though her character has one of the more overt struggles in the movie it goes largely unseen.

Starting on Day 2, Beth Ehoff is in Chicago where she has just cheated on her husband, Mitch. She arrives home in Minneapolis, sweating and exhausted. The next day, a blogger in San Francisco, Alan Krumwiede, tries to bring the San Francisco Chronicle a story about a man dying on a subway in Asia. Not believing he has a significant story, he is sent on his way. But the next day, Beth dies with wide eyes, foaming at the mouth and her son, Clark, follows shortly thereafter. Mitch is put into quarantine as the CDC, under Dr. Ellis Cheaver sends Dr. Erin Mears to try to study and contain the disease.

But soon, containment is the least of the worries as an estimated one in twelve people worldwide contract the disease and the death toll mounts. Orantes is taken hostage by the survivors of a village desperate to get a cure and Dr. Hextall, seeing the virulence of the virus, takes the most risky step to try to save humanity. And back in Minneapolis, Mitch tries desperately to protect his daughter from looters and the boy she likes by barricading themselves in their home.

There is a lot going on in Contagion and it is a highly plot-driven film. I have four pages of notes on the movie which detail plot points of places mentioned, populations and events, but the movie boils down to yet another near-apocalypse from a viral outbreak and the race to save humanity. The film is presented almost like a documentary (though blissfully without annoying handheld camera work). As a result, the movie is almost entirely devoid of a soundtrack, save when Marion Cotillard is on screen and an in-scene piece of music near the very end of the movie. While this helps to maintain the reality of the movie, it also makes the movie that is allegedly 105 minutes long feel about four times that length.

Some of the plots add to the reality, but do nothing for the viewability of the film. Alan's story goes from being one of a smalltime blogger intuiting his way into the biggest story of the era to a tale of corruption that is ultimately disappointing. Alan exposes the disease, starts pressing the idea that Forsythia is an effective treatment, is put on legitimate news outlets and ends up being exposes as a man profiting off his own advice. The truly disappointing thing about his arc is how Burns makes him into a monolithic character who is homogeneously wrong. Krumwiede raises the legitimate point that by rushing the vaccine tests potential side effects and long-term effects are absolutely unknown and could lead to tremendous troubles in the future. This is a legitimate concern and at the moment when it seemed like the movie might explore that, Alan is instead completely discredited. The dialectic nature of the character and the conflict he has makes it seem far more simple than it ought to.

The same could be said for many of the characters at one point or another, but because the movie is so plot-driven, it is pointless to elaborate. Instead, it is worthwhile to focus on the other major plot problem. In a movie where it takes twelve days for a doctor no longer on the project to grow strains of the virus, it seems ridiculous that by the twenty-ninth day, an effective vaccine is in mass production. As looting skyrockets and Mitch observes his neighbors being murdered from across the street, the peril drops off abruptly and is replaced by a very political sensibility to the movie.

For those who are freaked out by medical movies, Contagion has shockingly little gore or truly objectionable material. While the trailer revealed one of the most shocking moments with an infected person walking into traffic, which happens very early in the movie, the most graphic moment of the film comes on Day 6 when Beth's autopsy is done and her skull is cut open. If you make it through that scene, it's smooth sailing the rest of the film for the graphic unsettling department.

What keeps the film from being a total wash is the acting. Contagion features the best performance I have yet seen from actress Kate Winslet. Winslet plays Dr. Mears and she is efficient, clinical and at the moments she needs to be, deeply human. She is troubled by what she sees in the field, especially when she has to keep from Mitch that Beth was having an affair. Winslet is good, especially as the movie goes on. Mears also gives the opportunity for Laurence Fishburne's Dr. Cheever to do something we seldom see in film; have a boss show concern for an employee in a realistic way. Fishburne handles the jargon just fine and he presents the facts of the spread of the disease in a way that anyone who has seen C.S.I. or The Matrix would expect him to. But when he has to ask Winslet's Mears how she is doing, Fishburne makes Cheever into one of the most human and relatable characters in Contagion.

Unfortunately, Matt Damon is not so lucky. Playing Mitch, Damon's time to have the character truly rocked by the implication of Beth's death or by the struggle to save his daughter is lost. Instead, he is given his golden moment to shine early in the film when Mitch is shocked by Beth's death and anyone who has seen the trailer has already seen that. After that, Mitch protects his daughter as best he can, but before he can ever be truly impacted by anything going on around him, the movie shifts focus.

I have had a terrible record this summer of picking the winner for the weekend box office. But where I went into Contagion convinced this would oust The Help at the domestic box office, now I am utterly unconvinced it has the stones. The movie is slow, dry and while it seems very real - outside how fast a vaccine is developed - it never pops, it is never entertaining. And it is virtually unwatchable as a result. Judging by how neutral the theater I was in seemed after the fact, I know I am not alone in this assessment.

For other works with Laurence Fishburne, check out my reviews of:
Predators
Armored
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Mission: Impossible III
The Matrix Revolutions
The Matrix Reloaded
The Matrix

5/10

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

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

| | |

Didn't I Already See A Much Better Version Of This?! Repo Men Flops!

The Good: Initial idea is not a bad one.
The Bad: The idea was recently done, Stiff acting, Excessive gore and violence.
The Basics: Hugely disappointing, Repo Men is a thriller too predictable to be thrilling set in a world where overpriced organs are violently repossessed by thuggish repo men.


I've had it with horror movies for a while, I think. Earlier this year, I went to a lot of premieres and I found myself hoping that I'm not invited to more horror flicks for a while. That feeling came on the heels of my screening Repo Men, a film which lived up to all my worst fears of what it could be based on the previews. But more than a horror film, Repo Men was a psychologically-driven thriller, somewhat like Shudder Island in terms of depth. As such, Repo Men follows in the current trend of horror movies not being particularly scary. In fact, it is almost hard to call this a horror movie at all: it's a fairly-gory action-adventure film where some upsetting things happen in between battle scenes and people running.

As for the other aspect, when I started seeing the preview trailers for Repo Men, I thought the premise looked familiar, which it did. My wife had just had me watch Repo! The Genetic Opera (click here for that review) and, as one might suspect, the concepts are remarkably close. But where Repo! The Genetic Opera earned my respect for being both stylish in its presentation, clever in its concept and surprisingly smart, Repo Men is just the opposite. This cheap gore-flick is stark and anything but artistic, clearly derivative and obvious to the point of being dumb at some key moments.

Remy is a repo man for The Union, a medical conglomerate that specializes in artificial internal organs. While he usually works free-lance, he has a de facto partner, Jake, and they repossess organs that people have failed to keep up their payments on. Unfortunately for Remy, Remy was attacked while on the job and is only alive thanks to a Union artificial heart and the terms of payment have left him unable to keep up. Not willing to rip out his own heart, Remy goes on the run as his bills mount. Left by his wife, Carol, and pressured by his boss Frank, Remy tries to put his life back together.

His search for redemption and freedom takes him to Beth and an underground of people on the run from the Union as well. As Remy becomes what he used to hunt, Jake is forced to hunt him and as the two men move toward a final showdown, Remy and Beth make desperate inroads to end the Union itself.

And I don't care. Repo Men had an unbearable lack of connection for me as a viewer that I didn't care who lived, who died and whether or not Remy had his heart ripped out or if he actually thwarted Jake. The gore comes up so quickly and with such force that it actually made me queasy. And it wasn't a good queasy, like being uncomfortable because I had witnessed something clever, but unsettling. I was nauseous because the graphic nature of the movie and how classless it was presented; it made me feel classless to sit and watch people get torn apart for The Union. There's nothing entertaining about a film where one feels ashamed to continue to sit through the screening of it!

The excessive gore is a great example of how Repo Men is more gaudy than stylish. While Repo! The Genetic Opera played with the color palate and added music to mute the gore and play with the audience, Repo Men is not so kind. Instead, it is presented with a stark color palate with fast movement and quick cuts which only accent the bloody reveals. The only positive note one might have about this is that many of the disembowelings look realistic. This is utterly unsettling, but after the first few repossessions, one begins to feel that the footage of what The Union and Remy does is more for shock value and that The Union makes artificial organs because it looks cooler to have mechanical constructs ripped out of people.

As one might suspect, Repo Men is derivative in its story as well. Based upon his novel, Eric Garcia wrote the screenplay for Repo Men with Garrett Lerner and, unfortunately, they don't seem to have a fresh idea between them. Repo Men is the cinematic equivalent of pulp, with quick reversals, people running and incredible fight scenes. The martial art of choice here is kali, which Remy employs in trying to defend himself from Jake. It's no surprise that Jake tries to get inside Remy's head by virtue of being his former partner and his use by Frank as Remy's boss is no surprise either. Repo Men follows an unfortunately formulaic plot for a chase film with its predictably timed reversals, moments where Remy must weigh his humanity versus his own survival and revelations of Jake. The movie is not terribly scary, as moments when Jake jumps out to attack are so predictable and choreographed that the audience sees them coming a mile off. And, yes, the basic idea of a massive corporation dealing in internal organs and violently repossessing them was done in Repo! The Genetic Opera.

Sadly, Repo Men does not lift arguably the best aspect of Repo! The Genetic Opera, which was that film's Shakespearean nature. Repo! The Genetic Opera is arguably a twisted rewrite of Shakespeare's King Lear and it works beautifully as that. But Repo Men is nothing so smart. It's like a rather dumb rewrite of Crank and the fast paced nature of Remy going from one incident on the run to another feels more like that than anything better.

Part of the problem, no doubt, comes from director Miguel Sapochnik, who cuts the film together like a television commercial. The fight sequences, especially, are frenetic and have the feeling of being a video game or a Mountain Dew commercial on fast forward more than cohesive or even stylish. But Sapochnik was dealt a bad hand. First, the Garcia and Lerner script lacks a protagonist who is terribly empathetic or even smart. Remy is a Repo Man, he knows how bad the terms of The Union are; he enforces them! We are meant to believe that in his hour of greatest need, The Union used him and Remy agreed because he has a son and wife he simply cannot bear to part with. What, Remy never thought ahead and made an arrangement with the Union in case of emergency? He never thought to work a health plan into his last contract negotiation?!

No and the audience doesn't expect that he would. The reason for this is that Remy is played by the chronically-stiff Jude Law. The audience comes to figure Remy never thought "Duh, gee, if I repossess all these there purdy organs, if I ever get in with th' Union, they could send someone after me!" because Law never seems terribly imaginative in the role. He is coldly brutish and unsympathetic. But what is most problematic about his performance is that he fails to sell the moments which would convince the viewer that he cares about his son and loves his wife, Carol. Law has absolutely no on-screen chemistry with Carice Van Houten and his on-screen relationship with Beth is more plot formulaic than actually chemistry or character driven.

Liev Schreiber is fairly bland and monolithic as Frank and only Forest Whitaker holds his own as Jake. But even Whitaker is not given much to work with and he soon becomes a monolithic villain as the enforcer for the Union.

Now on DVD and Blu-Ray, Repo Men arrives with an additional eight minutes of footage reinserted into the film to make it a little more edgy than the original. Bafflingly, there are still deleted scenes. The DVD also features a commentary track and commercials for The Union. There is also a featurette on the visual effects, but none of these make the film any more palatable to those who didn't enjoy the source material.

In the end, Repo Men suffers dramatically because the viewer does not care about any of the characters and the story feels like what it is; a half-rate action-adventure film trying to masquerade as original based on a simple idea that had been presented in a much better way recently.

For other, similar, films, please check out my reviews of:
Gamer
Brazil
Blade: Trinity

3/10

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

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



| | |

Terry Gilliam's Visual Masterstroke And Heath Ledger's Final Performance Astound: The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus!

The Good: Direction, Acting, Plot, Character development, DVD (Blu-Ray) bonus features, Effects
The Bad: None
The Basics: A film by Terry Gilliam, The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is an adult fable where a man liberates visitors to his roadshow through dreamscapes which remind them what is important and ties for best movie of all time in my reckoning!


Last year, something rather extraordinary happened. Yes, I had to alter my list of Best Movies Of All Time. The weirdest aspect of it might be the footnote, which is this: I think Watchmen (click here for that review) was the best film of 2009, but the moment my wife brought home the DVD of The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus, I realized I was seeing a movie on par with the very best film I had ever seen. So, while Watchmen might be the best movie of 2009, this is tied for best movie of all time in my pantheon of reviews.

There are so many facets to the average person that it is sometimes hard to reconcile the different aspects of them. In truth, the moment the death of Heath Ledger was announced, the cinephile beat out the human being within me and I found myself asking "What does that mean for The Dark Knight?" When I learned that The Dark Knight was not suffering as a result of Ledger's death, I became human enough to say "How horrible!" Then I learned that he died while making Terry Gilliam's latest film.

There are few directors whose works I am so engaged by that I want to see their entire pantheon of works. There are even fewer directors whose works I enjoy watching again and again such that I'll see their movies when they come out in theaters or will buy right away when they are released on DVD. In fact, only three names (and it is a decidedly eclectic collection) jump right to mind and the common element is that they are all three writer-directors and they have all three pulled off perfect films. They are P.T. Anderson, Kevin Smith and Terry Gilliam. So, when my partner brought home The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus, I was thrilled because we had missed it in the theaters when it was originally released and because it was hailed as a masterpiece. In truth, Terry Gilliam's Brazil was the writer-director's masterwork, but it is impossible to watch The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus and not be blown away by the pure magic of the story and this film rivals it on every level.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is a wealth of creativity, amazing performances and characters who resonate with the viewer long after the film is over. Now on DVD, one finds themselves wishing that Terry Gilliam would re-release the films to theaters because no matter how big one's television screen is, there must have been no experience quite like seeing this one on the big screen. Terry Gilliam paints with a giant canvass in this film and his tools are ones I have not traditionally enjoyed - Jude Law and Collin Farrell have never wowed me as they do in The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus - but Gilliam gets the best out of them, while also presenting incredible performances by several lesser-known performers.

After a thousand years of life, Doctor Parnassus is dragged through London in an antiquated carnival style stage attempting to enlighten anyone who might actually pay attention to him. Accompanied by his diminutive assistant Percy, his daughter Valentina and his assistant, Anton, Doctor Parnassus bewilders most people he encounters by appearing to be a comatose man as a traveling sideshow act. But his act is far more than that, as a boy discovers when he crashes through the prop mirror in the wagon and is transported to a dreamworld where the fantastic is all around him and he has the chance to choose the direction of his life. Doctor Parnassus, however, is troubled as Valentina's sixteenth birthday is near and Mr. Nick, the devil, pops back up in Doctor Parnassus's life. While attempting to tell his daughter Valentina the truth about his past, the group rescues a man hanging from a bridge.

The stranger awakens, unsure of who he is or how he came to be hanged under the bridge. Enamored with Valentina and distrusted by Anton, the stranger - who soon comes to be known as Tony - begins to overhaul the traveling show to try to help Doctor Parnassus win his bet against Mr. Nick. As the truth comes out about Tony, Valentina's life hangs in the balance to see whose perspective: freedom or destruction those around Parnassus will choose!

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is more than just a visually spectacular film, it is a statement on society and humanity that resonates well with those who love great films, have the patience for a story's development and enjoy a story which has a timeless feel to it. Terry Gilliam has created a well-rounded film that is bound to stand the test of time, largely because it is visually innovative while telling a story which is timeless and reveals the essential human struggle. Mr. Nick, who is the devil, presents Doctor Parnassus with a very standard bet scenario which sets Parnassus up as an agent of freedom and imagination vs. conformity and temptation. The notion of sacrifice is explored thoroughly and cleverly in The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus.

Terry Gilliam makes the old new with this movie as the essential character struggle is a Faustian deal with the devil that has gone awry. Gilliam does a good job of setting the story up and one of the nicest aspects of The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is that Gilliam does not simply tear all of the elements down to be a nonconformist. So, for example, Anton clearly has romantic feelings for Valentina from the beginning and Gilliam acknowledges that there is a very traditional attraction going on here through some wonderful dialogue between Percy and Parnassus. Similarly, when Tony appears, Mr. Nick is nearby and this sets the story up to include elements of treachery from Tony which Gilliam does an amazing job of expressing through Tony's dream sequence.

The film is also clever in the way it deals with the death of Heath Ledger and viewers who know this film was his last are likely to be surprised how little of the film he isn't in. It appears Ledger died when there were only three essential sequences left to create and Gilliam's working around it is brilliant. By establishing that in the dreamscapes of Doctor Parnassus individuals may see themselves differently, Gilliam is able to recast Tony in three dream sequences using Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Collin Farrell. The sequences work and they give Depp, Law and Farrell chances to utilize their talents in amazing ways, presenting clever performances unlike any others in their careers.

Most of the film is ruled by Christopher Plummer, who plays Doctor Parnassus. Plummer once again illustrates how he is an actor uninhibited by any range issues. In his portrayal of Doctor Parnassus, Plummer explores a wild range, from aged and tired to spry and feisty. He becomes lovable as Doctor Parnassus from his opening scenes where he is almost catatonic through flashbacks which characterize him as a man of faith and devotion to an ideal. All the while, Plummer is able to infuse a fatherly love for Valentina in his every look and action when costar Lily Cole is around.

Cole is an astonishing beauty and she plays off Plummer, Andrew Garfield (Anton) and Ledger exceptionally well. She has a playful quality that is innocent and rambunctious which make Valentina instantly lovable, not just a draw to the eyes. Even Verne Troyer is able to give a performance that gives him an emotional depth beyond most of his other characters. And Tom Waits is brilliant casting for Mr. Nick, easily making the devil seem almost real and complicated.

But from the moment Heath Ledger enters the film as Tony, he rules it. Ledger plays Tony first as a hapless amnesiac and later as a devious salesman and the character arc is matched by acting which makes the transitions and realizations make perfect sense. Ledger is dynamic and in his final performance, he illustrates even more depth and range than he did in The Dark Knight.

On DVD, there is an extended scene and the film looks great. Despite being called a "deleted" scene, the extra scene is actually just an extended version of one of the dream sequences in the movie which did not have special effects finished for it. Terry Gilliam also introduces the movie and there is a wonderful and thorough commentary track for it which is informative and entertaining. As well, there are casting sessions with Heath Ledger and special effects featurettes that are cool to see. There are also dozens of movie previews for this and other films. On Blu-Ray all of the above are included, plus a few extra goodies, most notably the cast and crew giving Heath Ledger a final sendoff.

The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus is an adult fable which reminds us that we have one life and it is wasted without a love for life. It's not possible for there to be a better tribute to an actor who died so young and this becomes a film which should be a wake-up call for millions trapped in mundane lives they cannot truly stand.

For other works creative films, please check out my reviews of:
Dark City
Zombieland
Battlefield Earth

10/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page for a comprehensive listing by clicking here!

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



| | |