R.I.P. Garry Marshall: Mother's Day Is An Unremarkable End To A Brilliant Career

The Good: Acting and directing are fine
The Bad: No memorable characters, Thematically monolithic, Lack of zest or cleverness
The Basics: In a subpar dramedy about mothers, characters are mashed together unmemorably in what became an unfortunate final film for director Garry Marshall.


During my month sabbatical, I missed writing tributes to all of the significant individuals who died, most notably, actor Anton Yelchin. As, possibly, the end of that Rule Of Three, Garry Marshall died a few days ago and I could not let his death pass without viewing some of his works. Garry Marshall effectively launched the screen careers of two of my favorite actors: Robin Williams and Anne Hathaway. Without Marshall, Williams would have remained one of my very favorite stand-up comics and while Anne Hathaway probably would have become a superstar in her own right, based upon her talent, but it helped when she was given the starring role in Marshall's adaptation The Princess Diaries (reviewed here!). In the last few years, the comedic writer in Garry Marshall had surrendered to masterful director . . . who was, sadly, rehashing the same film over and over again. Marshall's final film, Mother's Day is essentially Marshall's final reworking of his prior film Valentine's Day (reviewed here!).

Unfortunately, Mother's Day capped off Marshall's initially creative career with yet another attempt to create a box office success by throwing together as many a-list Hollywood actors in a character-packed film that ties together loosely-related characters in a narrative that is more about the surprise of how it comes together than about anything else. Mother's Day mashes together Jennifer Aniston, Jason Sudeikis, Julia Roberts, Kate Hudson, and the omnipresent Hector Elizondo, with a surprising number of new, younger, actors to flesh out a story of families in Atlanta coming together in the week before Mother's Day.

Opening with Sandy, who is surprised when her ex-husband is in her house with their child and his friends, she is told by Henry that he needs to talk to her. Sandy's inkling that he might want to reunite with her is dashed when he tells her he eloped, with a vastly younger woman. Jesse and her sister Gabi are living a lie from their estranged mother. Gabi is a lesbian who never came out to her parents and Jesse married Russell, whose family is from India, who her mother despised when they were still in contact. Widower Bradley has two daughters and he runs a gym, while Miranda prioritized career over having children.

Gabi and Jesse's lives become vastly more complicated when their redneck parents arrive as a surprise and they have to come clean with them. Sandy, freaking out about her ex-husband's new wife and the way Tina has inserted herself into her children's lives, freaks out in front of Bradley at the supermarket and Bradley - who is concerned about the boy his daughter is dating - notices her at his gym. When a girl approaches Miranda at a book signing and tells her she is her daughter, Miranda's life is turned upside down as well.

Mother's Day is one of those unfortunate films that lacks a spark. Works that Marshall wrote tended to have a sense of patter to them; humor and realism that were distinct. Mother's Day is a troublingly flat film. In fact, having just finished watching the film, there was not a single line I could recall or that I remember laughing at. This is especially troubling, as interspersed through some of the stories are sets from a comedy competition. When the stand-up comics in a film fail to illicit a laugh, that is not a good sign.

One of the fundamental problems with Mother's Day is that the movie is overstuffed. The entire plotline with Zack Zim, his bride-to-be and her sudden relationship with Miranda, is both cluttered and unnecessary. It is also the source of the film's most problematic lines. For sure, Mother's Day is a film that is exactly what it appears to be; a celebration of women who choose to be mothers. But, for a movie that is filled with a wide variety of characters, it lacks any complexity or subtlety. The racists encounter their grandchildren and can't hate them they way they have estranged their daughters, the mother who is protective of her children is a good influence on the single father and the young man idolizes his wife-to-be because, as a mother "she knows" . . . everything about their child. Mother's Day plays into the narcissism surrounding motherhood, as opposed to ever challenging it. The film's least-attached character, Miranda, is still a productive member of society - she prioritized career and is respectable, even though she gave up her daughter.

My point here is that mothers are idolized in Mother's Day in a way that is not universally-relatable, at least this day in age.

Mother's Day lacks memorable characters, but the performances are fine and Garry Marshall managed to get decent performances out of the young, unestablished members of the cast. But the movie is not engaging or held together in any compelling way. Instead, the performers do adequate jobs of representing the parts they were given, but those roles are not inherently interesting to watch or return to. That makes for a sad coda to a brilliant career for Garry Marshall.

For other works featuring Jennifer Aniston, please visit my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses 2
She's Funny That Way
Life Of Crime
We're The Millers
Wanderlust
Horrible Bosses
Just Go With It
The Bounty Hunter
The Switch
Love Happens
He's Just Not That Into You
30 Rock - Season 3
Friends With Money
Rumor Has It . . .
Friends
Office Space

2/10

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

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

Aging No Better Than Its Initial Release, Hook Is Bloated And Boring!

The Good: Decent character arc for the protagonist
The Bad: Mediocre performances all around, Varying quality of special effects, Plot progression in the midsection is dull
The Basics: A family adventure that provides a live-action Peter Pan story, Hook is an unfortunately dull take that has the lawyer Peter Banning put on a quest to save his children by reverting to his prior persona of Peter Pan.


Last month, with the untimely death of Robin Williams, my wife and I felt an instant desire to rewatch works by Robin Williams that we had not seen in quite some time. For me, that took the form of wanting to watch The Fisher King (reviewed here!), for her she had a powerful desire to rewatch Hook. Hook was one of those films that I had managed to avoid in my young adulthood – when it was released, I was past the age where I had any interest in kid’s movies and I was still too young for the adult themes in Hook to resonate – but, as it turns out, it was one of the formative films for my wife. I recall the movie being on in the staff lounge when I worked at a summer camp (I avoided it by going off on my own to read, as I frequently did), but until my wife sat us down to watch it, I had never actually seen Hook. In watching Hook, I realized that I never paid tribute to the passing of Bob Hoskins, who also died this year (I’ll rectify that later this week!). Unfortunately for the legacies of Robin Williams, Bob Hoskins and the rest of the cast who will one day leave this work behind as part of their legacy, Hook is not an exceptional film in any way.

Steven Spielberg, who directed Hook, is famously quoted as saying “People have forgotten how to tell a story. Stories don't have a middle or an end any more. They usually have a beginning that never stops beginning” and he certainly is right about that. Most movies do not develop or only do so in truly predictable, banal ways. Unfortunately, with Hook, Spielberg (who was not involved with writing the film) illustrates well that even with a solid sense of development, it is possible to make a pretty terrible movie. Hook is not the worst movie ever, but it is a film crippled by mediocrity, hampered by predictability and is so concerned with telling a specific story of one character’s arc that is completely neglects a sensible development for several of the other characters (most notably the titled villain).

While finding an audience should not be a huge problem, rewatching Hook is a great example of how a movie without a clear focus of to whom the story is being told can be troubling. The film is painfully boring for children for almost the first third, too goofy for adults in the second and third parts to pay off for adults and ultimately acts as an overlong The Little Rascals sketch with an obscenely long build-up.

Peter Banning is an American lawyer who hates flying on planes, is tremendously focused on his work, and neglects his two children most of the time. After missing his son, Jack’s, baseball game, Peter, his wife, and children head to London where Peter’s “great grandmother” Wendy is being honored for her lifetime of charity work for orphans. While Peter, Wendy and Moira are out at the dinner, Jack and Maggie are kidnapped from their beds by the malicious Captain Hook. Peter is miffed, though Wendy tries to get him to believe that he has to go to find the children. Peter is visited by Tinkerbell, who takes him to Neverland.

There, Peter awakens in the pirate’s village where he finds his children and Captain Hook. Hook slowly comes to accept that Banning is Peter Pan (even though Banning does not), but finds the straight-laced lawyer an unworthy opponent for his wrath. To save Peter’s life and the life of his children, Tinkerbell tells Hook that she can get Peter to remember who he is within three days and they can have the battle Hook wants. So, while Hook tries to convert Jack to his cause, Peter is taken to the Lost Boys where Rufio and his child gang retrain him to use his imagination and recall that he is Peter Pan.

The thing about Hook is that Hook is so dramatically underdeveloped in contrast to Peter that he comes across as a monolithic villain. He has had decades to get over the fact that Peter Pan cost him his hand and he essentially rules the seas around Neverland, so provoking a fight with Peter that could cause him to lose everything seems utterly moronic. Lacking a compelling villain who has a clear and compelling need for revenge, Hook becomes a somewhat ridiculous grudge match where one of the participants does not even bear a grudge!

Fortunately, Captain Hook is given the whole plotline that has him turning Jack Banning to his side, to drive a wedge between Peter and his own son. That concept at least makes Hook smart and gives Dustin Hoffman as Hook additional screentime.

But Hook is too straightforward otherwise to keep the interest of the viewer. Peter Banning was always going to go through the journey to realize that he was Peter Pan; everyone around him has been right all along. This was never going to be a reality-bending film experience where people surrounding Peter Banning are all crazy and they get wrong who Peter Pan has become. So, going into Hook, the deck is stacked against those hoping for an audacious film experience. Peter Banning’s arc from uptight lawyer to Peter Pan is actually remarkably good and well-developed. The entire film smartly moves Peter along on his journey of self-discovery (or rediscovery) in a way that works beautifully.

The acting in Hook is mediocre. Dustin Hoffman plays Hook as bored and goofy as opposed to truly menacing, so the hold Hook has over the other pirates does not seem at all realistic. Julia Roberts, due to the special effects process of making her appear smaller, seldom gets eyelines right for interacting with other actors. As a result, Tinkerbell seems disconnected from other characters and Roberts is clearly not interacting with Robin Williams or Dustin Hoffman in most of the scenes they share. Robin Williams is fine as Peter, though he has absolutely no on-screen chemistry with Caroline Goodall (who plays Peter’s wife, Moira) and he fails to land a key scene where Peter Pan tells Jack that the happy thought that allows him to fly is related to his son. Poor Bob Hoskins is relegated to the role of ridiculous Disney-style comic relief sidekick as Smee.

The result is that Hook has a clear beginning, middle, and end and a protagonist whose story develops, but none of it is truly compelling. Too slow to be a great kid’s movie, too goofy to entertain adults, Hook fizzles.

For other works with Caroline Goodall, please check out my reviews of:
My Life In Ruins
Alias - Season 5
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
The Mists Of Avalon
Schindler’s List

3/10

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

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

Unimpressive Oscarbait: I Keep Waiting For August: Osage County To Take Off.

The Good: Moments of performance, Some of the lines, Moments of humor.
The Bad: Hard to empathize with the characters, Sterile direction, Bland plot
The Basics: With an incredible cast, August: Osage County might be an acting showcase, but it still nets a painfully dull movie for the most part.


Before sitting down to watch August: Osage County, I became convinced of a simple premise: the main reason Meryl Streep is cast in movies these days is so the movie will get noticed during Oscar Pandering Season. It’s been years since anyone tried releasing a film with Meryl Streep outside Oscar Pandering Season – Julie & Julia (reviewed here!) was the last I know of – and while I suppose it is as good a reason as any to put Meryl Streep in a movie, it would be nice if the films for which she was cast had substance to back them up.

I mention this at the top of my review of August: Osage County because this is a movie with a massive cast of talented performers, including Meryl Streep, that goes nowhere as a film. This is not to say that Meryl Streep is not wonderful in August: Osage County - because she is – but one suspects that director John Wells loaded the film with Streep, Benedict Cumberbatch, Chris Cooper, Julia Roberts and Ewan McGregor in the hopes that viewers would be so blown away by who was on the screen that they would not notice that the movie is pretty boring. And I write that as one who loves the film Magnolia (reviewed here!). In fact, in her best moments in August: Osage County, Meryl Streep’s performance is reminiscent of Jason Robards’s performance in Magnolia as a person suffering through a painful end of life period.

Shortly after Beverly Weston sets his wife up with a caretaker, he disappears, leaving his wife Violet to die on her own (for all he apparently cares). Violet’s daughter, Ivy, calls Barbara and Barbara, her estranged husband Bill and their daughter Jean, return to their family’s house. Violet’s sister, Mattie Fae Aiken and her husband Charlie, come to help out as well. When Beverly’s body is recovered (having drown himself), the other daughter Karen and her older fiancé, Steve, show up for the funeral. Missing the funeral is Charlie and Mattie Fae’s son, Little Charlie, though he shows up for the post-funeral meal.

With the full family together after the funeral, the Westons, Aikens, and Fordhams sit down for one of the most uncomfortable meals in cinematic history. There, Violet spitefully sets family members against each other (and her) by claiming right to all of the money Beverly left (though the will was never legally changed) and the family tries to put up with the venomous woman, despite knowing that she doesn’t have very long left herself. Over the course of the stay, Little Charlie and Ivy’s affair comes out – though their true relationship is not disclosed to Little Charlie – and Steve tries to use weed to get Jean pliable enough to rape. As Violet’s pill-popping increases, the family falls apart, leaving only misery in her wake.

August: Osage County works, when it does, because it is funny. When it is not gut-wrenchingly, excruciatingly uncomfortable, August: Osage County has some very funny lines. Chris Cooper is in rare form as Charlie; his bit about eating some good fear is hilariously delivered and it’s easy to see the charm he possesses and portrays in almost every scene of August: Osage County. Cooper plays Charlie’s love for his son as perfectly organic and beautifully delivered (the moment he stands up for Little Charlie is one of the film’s high points). During the meal scenes, August: Osage County is reminiscent of Peep World (reviewed here!) for its charm, complicated dynamics, and the way the expert cast members play off one another.

Sadly, the comedy in August: Osage County ends. It does not merely end: it dies a fast, hard, miserable death. From the moment Steve first ambles up to Jean, there is something sinister about him. When he becomes more aggressive with her, the film commits to a tone that it never turns back from. For all the spite and horribleness of Violet, other characters managed to get in amusing lines before that. As a result, August: Osage County has a flow and some sense of enjoyment until that point. After that point, though, the film becomes oppressive and downright miserable.

While some of the characters are interesting (oddly, in a film dominated by wonderful women, only Ivy and Johnna Monevata – the caretaker – are truly likable), few are really decent people. Charlie is good, Little Charlie is so deeply caring, and even Bill has some moments, but the film is largely about dysfunction and how people react to the spiteful Violet. Violet is arguably Meryl Streep’s meanest role since The Devil Wears Prada (reviewed here!).

That makes the reason to endure the two hours of August: Osage County the acting. Everyone in the film perfectly embodies their characters and they perform admirably. While Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts continue to get most of the attention, I was impressed by Julianne Nicholson. Nicholson plays Ivy and she has great onscreen chemistry with Benedict Cumberbatch (Little Charlie). She plays Ivy with a deep, restrained sadness for most of the movie and she emotes so much with her eyes that it is hard not to empathize with her character.

That said, it’s unsurprising that August: Osage County did not get nominated for the Best Picture Oscar; it is a ponderous, painful movie. It’s worth watching once for the impressive acting, but unfathomable to want to sit through a second time as it is largely unenjoyable, regardless of how well it captures a slice of reality.

For other works with Benedict Cumberbatch, please check out my reviews of:
The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug
12 Years A Slave
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Atonement
Fortysomething

5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

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

Who Is This Deceiving? Duplicity Is Much More Average Than Extraordinary.

The Good: Decent enough acting, Moments of plot
The Bad: Pacing, Light on character
The Basics: Slower than expected, Duplicity lacks real substance or smarts and leaves those who love spy or espionage films disappointed, despite the casting.


Sometimes, with all of the previews I see given all of the movies in theaters I take in, I am astonished to find a movie that has little to it outside the previews. In fact, while I often complain about how previews in the last few years show the entire movie, it is rare that I run into a film where that is almost literally true. And it might seem odd to preface my review of the two hour five minute movie Duplicity with that remark, but the three minute preview trailer shows almost the entire film, at least the portions with dialogue, outside the final five minutes. Seriously. More troubling than the conspiracy elements - something which I was baffled to discover people in the theater with me today did not understand given they were spelled out pretty explicitly in the final five minutes of the movie - was the fact that almost every line of dialogue and certainly every key bit of information about Duplicity is contained within the preview trailer for the film.

No, there is almost no additional substance outside what one might have seen in a preview to Duplicity. The film is a series of jumps in time returning viewers to a point five years prior, then successively closer intervals to "now," but outside that narrative technique and the movie's final resolution, there are no real surprises, no substantial differences and certainly no depth between the preview trailer and the actual film. For those who love espionage movies, then, this is a tremendous disappointment.

Ray Koval is working corporate security for Equikrom, a personal care/wellness and beauty company which is bitter rivals with Burkett Randle, when he is assigned to meet the Equikrom mole within Burkett Randle. Much to his chagrin, he discovers that his contact is none other than Claire Stenwick, a former CIA agent who burned Koval years prior as part of an espionage mission while Koval was working for MI-6. Now acting as her handler, Ray brings the corporate security and espionage department of Equikrom a true grail, the rough draft of a speech by the head of Burkett Randle, Tully, wherein the CEO of BR alludes to a massive new product the company will be rolling out which will finally sink Equikrom once and for all. Ray and his team begin hunting for the product to beat Burkett Randle to a patent to prevent the company's destruction.

But Ray and Claire's initial confrontation is an elaborate setup on the part of the former intelligence operatives, begun two years prior in Rome. As the current hunt for the new product unfolds with Claire inside Burkett Randle running a confidence game there by exposing Ray at Equikrom at every possible opportunity, Ray and Claire consider the meetings in the past two years that led them to this particular job. As the pair nears the end of their high tech heist, they must choose to trust one another or make the score for only themselves.

Duplicity is told with a main timeline in the "present" with Ray and Claire - after the opening scene - clearly working with one another to acquire the unknown product first, not to rescue Equikrom, but to sell on their own for all the money they want to be able to retire. Now in New York City as the trail of evidence that seems to lead to the mystery product puts Ray and Claire in a game of wits against their respective coworkers in corporate counterintelligence, the story is interspersed with London eighteen months ago, Miami fourteen months ago, and Cleveland three months ago with the backstory of how Ray and Claire came to trust one another and the tests to their faith in one another. It is from mostly the flashbacks that the clips shown on television and before other movies come, but they capture the flirtatious and problematic nature of the relationship between Ray and Claire.

Perhaps Duplicity would have worked better have Clive Owen not appeared so recently in The International, which had him in a similar role trying to track down another corporate conspiracy. One suspects that would not have made a significant amount of difference, though, as Duplicity does not focus all that much on character to begin with. Instead, there is a lot of dialogue that is essentially plot exposition and given the level of explanation that all of the characters give as to what is going on, it baffled me that anyone who could see would leave the theater confused as to what ultimately happens. Indeed, all one has to do at the end is recognize the characters who are standing in a room together and realize where they have seen them in the film before that last five minutes and it becomes pretty obvious exactly what has happened throughout the film.

That said, Duplicity - via writer and director Tony Gilroy - makes a passing effort to present a character struggle in the film. This takes the form of Ray and Claire alternately putting everything on the line for one another or not trusting the other and appearing to work in their own self interest as opposed to part of a whole. The problem here is that the story can go only one of two ways: either Ray and Claire are in it together and are deceiving others or they are in it for themselves. Either of those choices is resolved either with the pair pulling it off together or there being a betrayal that is revealed at the end to thwart one or both of them. Duplicity only works if there seems to be a credible threat that either of the pair is ready to bail on the other and cheat at their overall scheme for their own self interest.

Here Gilroy undermines his own attempt. Because the viewer sees Ray and Claire planning their scheme for years and testing one another well before the actual plan is initiated, the viewer never truly believes that they are not together with their plan, working together even when it appears they are turning on one another. In other words, because the viewer sees the character work and trust built before the actions have consequences - through the flashbacks whenever the main plotline gets slower - we fail to believe that any of their actions are not part of some intricate and elaborate plan on their parts.

Even more disturbing is the concept that for all of the attempts at the pretense of a character struggle dealing with how spies might actually have relationships and learn to trust one another after lying for a living, is the fact that Gilroy never gives the viewer adequate reason for the spies heading off in the direction they are. Ray and Claire meet up in Rome have three days worth of lovemaking and Claire asks Ray how much money he thinks they would need in order to stay in Rome and make love the rest of their lives. From that point on, they each set out to develop a scheme that will net them a forty million dollar nest egg to retire from the spy business on.

But the fundamental question that is not answered is: Why do these two spies only have patience to develop a scheme as opposed to work for a couple of years to earn the same amount of money? Corporate spies like Ray and Claire must make a ton of money. Ray, for example, illustrates that the frozen pizza business is a multi-billion dollar business in the United States. So, one has to imagine - especially in these times when executive bonuses are being so closely scrutinized and widely reported - that if your head of corporate counterintelligence manages to thwart a competitor's attempt to steal a product worth hundreds of millions of dollars that counterintelligence agent would receive a pretty hefty bonus for their work. Neither Ray nor Claire ever exhibits a reason for their sense of need for a ticking clock. Why are they willing to work two years to abandon their lives as trusted assets in the intelligence community instead of working for ten years to get the money legitimately? This, the character element, is the only thing that makes no real sense in Duplicity.

As a result, the heads of each company, Tully and Dick Garsick, have more motivation than Claire or Ray ever have. Tully and Garsick want to destroy each other so their business - and only their business - will survive. As a result, they are willing to be ruthless with one another. But Claire is a former CIA agent and Ray is former MI-6 and the only reason either leaves the principled world of legitimate international spying is to go off and become corporate spies, a job each intends to betray their employer while doing. The thing here is as members of MI-6 and the CIA, there ought to be an underlying assumption that the spy is principled; they are loyal to their country or cause. Yet that is not evident in Claire or Ray.

As for the acting, it is nothing extraordinary. Frankly, Julia Roberts was better or more involved in her role in Charlie Wilson's War (reviewed here!) than in Duplicity and Clive Owen seems to be relying mostly on his penetrating eyes to sell himself as Ray. In fact, as far as the acting goes, all Duplicity does is force the question of why Clive Owen isn't playing James Bond. The other principle actors, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, fall along the lines of expected greatness. Their roles are remarkably small, they do them as well as they can and there is not much substance to their acting as a result.

Ultimately, Duplicity is a remarkably average corporate spy flick where everything blandly progresses toward a final revelation in the last five minutes that would be interesting if the rest of the movie had been worthwhile up until that point.

For other works with Tom Wilkinson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
The Green Hornet
Valkyrie
Batman Begins
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
The Girl With The Pearl Earring
Shakespeare In Love
Smilla’s Sense Of Snow

5/10

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

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

My Best Friend's Wedding Is One Miserable Person's Quest To Do Something Stupid.

The Good: The end
The Bad: Character, Acting, Plot, Utter lack of charm
The Basics: My Best Friend's Wedding is filled with utterly unlikable characters, acting devoid of any charisma and a plot so ridiculous and stupid as to be absent and a huge disappointment.


There are several reasons I usually shy away from romantic comedies. The biggest reason for me is that more often than not, I find them predictable and unfunny. Every now and again, a romantic comedy comes along that has such quirky, original characters or a story I cannot resist because it is clever and different. I like those romantic comedies. They are about one in every two hundred. This is not one of them.

My Best Friend’s Wedding is quite possibly the romantic comedy I have enjoyed the very least in the entire genre. Jules, approaching 28, believes her supposed best friend Michael is going to cash in on a deal they made years ago. They had agreed if they were not married by 28, they would marry one another. Jules is wrong, however, as Michael reveals that he is all set to marry the perky Kimmy. Jules decides to do something about this; break up the wedding. With and without her friend George, Jules embarks on as mission to stop Michael from marrying Kimmy and get him to marry her instead.

This is a conceptually weak film and it goes from bad in the beginning to worse throughout. At every major decision, the characters turn to Jules, who steers them more and more wrong. It's painful to watch because they consistently dig themselves in deeper and deeper until the viewer is left screaming at the screen, wondering who finds this dribble entertaining.

At the crux of the problem are the characters. Jules, especially, is unlikable and devious. She is cruel, unloveable, utterly lacking in charm and obsessive. That none of the other characters seem to recognize this is ridiculous. That at every turn, Michael and Kimmy turn to her for advice is silly and as she continues to purposely give them bad advice makes it more difficult to watch. The viewer is not captivated, waiting to see what happens next. Instead, we sit there disgusted wondering when this will be over. Indeed, Jules makes this 105 minute film seem like at least three hours. In short, there's nothing remotely alluring about Jules that would make anyone want to marry her, much less cast off a wedding at the last moment to be with her.

And the other characters are no better. Why George encourages her to tell Michael she loves him instead of advising her to cut her losses and move on is ridiculous. But even there, it's excusable. George playing at being Jules' fiance is just inexcusably in bad taste. It doesn't make sense on a character level and it feels contrived from a plot perspective. Michael is white bread bland and his ability to marry a woman after a month with such an elaborate wedding is stupid to the point of defying comic convention. Never does Michael say or do anything in My Best Friend’s Wedding to indicate why he is worth all of the time and effort of two women competing for him. And finally, there is Kimmy. Actually, that's all there is to say. Kimmy is a perky, difficult-to-watch parody of a soon-to-be bride.

The acting is nothing to shout about either. First off, the casting director ought never to get work again; Dermot Mulroney and Rupert Everett as Michael and George was one of the worst casting decisions in recent memory. The two are visually so similar as to often be interchangeable. They sound alike, look alike and dress alike. Poor casting, costuming and writing. Yes, one has a scar. I finished watching the film twenty minutes ago and I could not tell you which had the scar, though. Both actors are supposed to be Hollywood suave and sophisticated and desirable and both come across as bland and insipid.

Similarly, Cameron Diaz is a parody. She is super-excited, lacking in real definition or humor. Essentially, she is playing the same character here as her character in Charlie's Angels (reviewed here!). Here, she's getting married, though. There's nothing exciting in her performance, just her energy and enthusiasm.

The performance that sinks the film is Julia Roberts as Jules. Roberts never infuses Jules with any charm or her natural charisma to make the viewer believe her character is even capable of love. In the end, a glimmer of that is necessary to sell us on this film. Absent of that, Roberts' performance is devoid of believability and her smile does not save her. Roberts lacks comedic timing and energy and it leaves My Best Friend’s Wedding listless and without redeeming features.

The only thing that is enjoyable about this film is its ending. It's not the typical ending, though it is certainly the place Jules deserves to end up. Even with that, though, there's a disappointment. Michael's easy forgiveness of Jules for all her sabotaging is silly. Justice is not served in this film as Jules does not end up utterly alone. My Best Friend’s Wedding embodies all of the worst, cheapest aspects of the romantic comedy and is a waste of time for anyone who could be watching pretty much anything else.

For other works with Dermot Mulroney, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Flash Of Genius
The Family Stone
About Schmidt

1/10

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

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not Even Worth The Free Library Borrowing To Watch: America’s Sweethearts Flops.

The Good: A Somewhat decent cast, moments of Walken
The Bad: Not funny, Unlikable characters, Predictable, Low denominator humor
The Basics: In a film devoid of any characters who are empathetic and a plot that seems like it was written by a third grade student, the viewer has nothing to enjoy from America’s Sweethearts.


When was the last time you watched a romantic comedy that actually surprised you? One where you couldn't call the ending in the first two minutes of the film and where the characters were actually interesting and likable? How about one that was actually funny and that stood up over multiple viewings? If you're looking for a movie that meets all of those criteria . . .

. . . keep looking, it's not America’s Sweethearts.

The premise of this dullard is that a famous movie couple has broken up. Gwen and Eddie were box office magic when they worked together and their last film is ready to be released, but it needs the two of them to work the press to sell it. So, their agents work tirelessly to arrange a press junket where it will appear that the two are still together. The problems? Eddie has had a complete, crippling nervous breakdown and Gwen is a hellish diva.

Right off the bat, the only moment of this film I enjoyed was Christopher Walken's character. When Hal plays the movie he filmed that the press junket is supposed to be for, I laughed. That was once in 102 minutes. That's not enough.

What went wrong? The script is horrible. It's not funny. It resorts to stupid jokes like a dog nuzzling into a man's crotch (and the man is Billy Crystal). It resorts to stupid fat jokes in reference to Kiki, Gwen's sister and agent, and it tops it all off with stupid attempts to make Eddie's mental state seem funny.

All of the meetings between Gwen and Eddie at the resort are obvious, contrived and insult the intelligence of the viewers. That Eddie can't see Kiki's obvious love for him is ridiculous and the way all of the characters behave is appalling and insipid. This movie reads like a tabloid, without the emotional resonance of celebrities one actually cares about.

Catherine Zeta-Jones portrays Gwen as a hellion without any redeeming qualities such that it makes it impossible to see why the nice guy Eddie, much less anyone, would be attracted to her. John Cusack never makes Eddie anything special. He plays the wounded man much like his other parts, like Jonathan in Serendipity. Put Eddie and Jonathan in the same room and I couldn't tell them apart at this point.

America’s Sweethearts continues the trend of leaving me baffled as to how Julia Roberts continues to keep getting work. Indeed, like Cusak, there is nothing distinctive that she does as Kiki to differentiate from some of her other roles.

In short, America’s Sweethearts is a contrived piece that works under the idea that if you put two feuding, unlike people together in a situation where they have to be on their best behavior, hilarity will ensue. It does not. If you want a good romantic comedy that puts two different people together and actually works, try When Harry Met Sally.

For other works featuring Stanley Tucci, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Hunger Games
Captain America: The First Avenger
Easy A
Swing Vote
The Devil Wears Prada
The Terminal

2/10

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

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Master Of Visuals Makes A Crappy Movie: Mirror Mirror

The Good: Sets, Costumes, Direction, One or two lines
The Bad: Story is unimaginative, Acting is unremarkable, Character development is virtually nonexistent.
The Basics: Mirror Mirror barely holds up as a child’s movie, offering nothing enjoyable for adults that we have not already seen many, many, many times before.


It is chic to reinterpret fairy tales on film these days. While many of the reinterpretations involve modernizing the story, like Beastly (reviewed here!) did not too long ago, the other way to try to make a fairy tale fresh is by simply providing modern dialogue or themes in the otherwise fantastical context. Mirror Mirror does the latter and it does it sparingly enough that it is hard to imagine Snow White as a helpless damsel in distress afterward. Yes, Mirror Mirror is a comic-fantasy reinterpretation of the Snow White fairy tale and despite what the advertising campaign has claimed, it is not the most anticipated movie of the year. For my consideration, it is not even the most anticipated Snow White movie of the year (that honor belonged to Snow White And The Huntsman, reviewed here)!

Unfortunately, the advertising campaign for Mirror Mirror is one of the most accurate ones in recent memory. Mirror Mirror is light fun, looks good and is utterly insubstantial. Sadly, it is not terribly funny, it is not a clever reinterpretation and it does not give the viewer anything new. Instead, once the visual marvel of the movie fades, so does any positive impression of the film. Mirror Mirror is very much a children’s movie and for the kids who can handle the comedic violence the movie has, the themes of the movie should already be pretty well ingrained. In other words, even for children, there is not a lot in Mirror Mirror to get excited about, save the movie’s appearance.

The story is pretty much the classic one: the Queen takes control of a kingdom, diminishing the heir apparent in the process. Unfortunately for the Queen, she has inherited a kingdom more magical than rich, so she seeks to consolidate her power by marrying the wealthy Prince Alcott. Unfortunately for her, Prince Alcott remembers Snow White from a chance meeting in the forest and is quite smitten with her beauty. With the kingdom near bankruptcy and the Queen determined to marry Alcott and retain control, she has Snow White put to death. Snow White is merely banished by her bumbling assistant, Brighton. As the Queen takes desperate measures to keep Alcott interested in her, she finds her control on the kingdom slipping. Using magic to make Alcott believe he is in love with her, she works to obtain his wealth. Meanwhile, Snow White has been rescued from a potential death in the hainted woods by a band of dwarves. The dwarves give her the confidence she needs to rise up and take the kingdom back. While the Queen tries to keep Alcott ensorcelled, Snow White moves to retake her rightful place.

The other night, my wife and I watched Star Trek: Insurrection (reviewed here!). We were both surprised by how much the movie got away with while still getting a PG rating. Mirror Mirror is PG and it is so safe and silly that it almost made me wonder what one has to do to make a movie G these days. The storyline is utterly inoffensive and appropriately predictable.

The real changes from the familiar story involve the characterization of Snow White and the inclusion of more farcical elements. Snow White in Mirror Mirror is more empowered than in other versions of the Snow White story. Unfortunately, that is not what is stressed nearly as much as her beauty. Everyone in Snow White fawns over the character’s beauty, not her brains. Ironically, this is the role of Lily Collins’ (Snow White) where she seems to be trading least on traditional notions of beauty or cuteness and yet is treated like she is the most attractive woman ever. She has looked better in some of her other films where her looks were not called attention to. Regardless of the ironic disparity, Mirror Mirror features a Snow White who is more cunning than other versions of the story, which is nice. The thing is, she starts the movie that way, she ends it that way; there is not really any development of the character throughout the film.

Similarly, the Queen seems more bored than actually evil. Sure, she does bad things, but there is the real sense that she feels some of the same pressure most everyone else in a capitalist society does. She feels more poor than she would like, so she works to change that . . . just through corrupt means. That change is not nearly as annoying as the dwarves. The collection of allies for Snow White is annoying. They provide the comic relief in an already silly movie and they fall down at that. They are more ridiculous than interesting and watching them becomes tiresome, despite how well actors like Danny Woodburn commit to their roles. When added to a movie that includes a dance number that instantly reminded me of Ella Enchanted (reviewed here!), Mirror Mirror seems hardly original or even enjoyable.

The comparison to Ella Enchanted is not a bad one. Mirror Mirror is like Ella Enchanted without the charm or sense of originality.

As for the performances, I was not impressed. Nathan Lane and Julia Roberts each bring a confidence and professional bearing to their roles of Brighton and the Queen, respectively, that they overshadow the rest of the cast. While Roberts and Lane seem to be performing well within their established range – nothing either of them did in Mirror Mirror made me say or think “Wow, I’ve never seen them do that before!” – they fill their niches well and are perfectly plausible in their roles.

By comparison, Lily Collins is surprisingly listless. Frequently stiff and not emoting what her lines dictate, Collins plays the empowered young woman without any zest or passion. She never bursts off the screen in a way that makes the viewer care what happens to her. In fact, at one point, I just shrugged and said, “Oh wow, a good looking young woman encounters a minor obstacle.” Collins might be playing the impassioned young woman on a rebellious mission to take back what is hers, but she fails to emote the unquenchable longing for what is hers by right. As a result, Snow White never becomes sympathetic, much less a character we empathize with.

Ultimately, director Tarsem Singh created a movie that looks good with Mirror Mirror, but does little else. It is refreshing to see a film that is visually engaging without being horrific – like Singh’s blockbuster The Cell - but while Singh creates a fantasy realm, it is not on par with other cinematic settings of late. This is not Middle Earth, nor Narnia, nor even the fantasy kingdom from Once Upon A Time. The castle is an interesting digital model, but what makes the movie more visually interesting than anything else are the costumes. Snow White and the Queen’s costumes are lavish and beautiful; the garb on the dwarves is appropriately worn and dirty. Mirror Mirror is, at its best, easy to watch.

That leaves the viewer with little go get excited about. The slapstick humor is ridiculous, the story is familiar and all the rest never rises above being mediocre. That makes it easy to pass on Mirror Mirror.

For other fantasy films, please check out my reviews of:
Red Riding Hood
The Lord Of The Rings
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time

3/10

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

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

Aaron Sorkin's Return To Cinematic Enterprises: The Process Story Charlie Wilson's War Is Good.

The Good: Generally good acting/casting, Plot, Characters, Surprisingly good use of footage/effects, Presentation
The Bad: Clunky in parts, Feels short, Sense of time is skewed, Light on DVD bonus features.
The Basics: A good bet for anyone who loves political process stories this season, Charlie Wilson's War is a solid film that will entertain and inform!


On The West Wing," occasionally characters will mention what Leo McGarry once says early on: "There are two things you never want people to see how you make: laws and sausages." It seems strange, then, that writer Aaron Sorkin would follow his admirable television failure Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip with a screen adaptation of a process story. In Charlie Wilson's War, we are treated not to how laws are made but how influence is bought and sold and the dramatic influence of one lone Congressman.

From the first moment characters begin speaking in Charlie Wilson's War, this glows as one of the written works of Aaron Sorkin, whose dialogue is characterized by a fast paced back and forth usually on topics that are tangential to the main storyline. Between dazzling audiences with The West Wing and his more recent success, The Social Network (click here for that review), Sorkin wowed a smaller audience with Charlie Wilson's War. So when a flashback begins with Congressman Charlie Wilson sitting in a hot tub naked with three women and a man who are doing cocaine, being pitched a "Dallas in Washington television series idea," it feels immediately like pure Sorkin. Despite the esoteric mix of verbal humor and historic high drama that follows, much of Charlie Wilson's War does not have the Sorkin flavor to it and I am surprised (and delighted) to find I enjoyed it as much as I did with that being the case!

Charlie Wilson, six-term U.S. Congressman from the Texas 2nd Congressional District in 1980, through happenstance watches a report on the news on troops from Afghanistan resisting the Soviet Union's advance and military takeover of their country. Desperate to thwart communism, Wilson becomes curious about what would happen to the Soviet Union if Afghanistan could effectively resist and as he sits on the Congressional subcommittees involving financing the Defense Department and the CIA's covert budget, he is soon informed that he is the perfect man to arrange to adequately fund the operations needed to win a war with the Soviet Union through Afghanistan.

Pressured to take action by one of his chief campaign financiers, Joanne Herring, Wilson is introduced to CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos, the pointman on the Afghanistan project because his troubled tenure with the Agency has left him with nothing better to do. Suddenly in the hot seat, Gus (as Wilson calls him) introduces Wilson to weapons experts, strategists and becomes a vital part of Wilson's negotiations with leaders in Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt to secure enough weapons and a covert way to get them into Afghanistan to allow the Afghan people to begin shooting down the Soviet Union's armor-plated helicopters and turn the tide of battle against the Communist forces.

While Gust and Wilson are negotiating and arm-twisting politicians and world leaders, Joanne is raising funds to keep Wilson in his congressional seat. Wilson's past as a congressman of low moral character (he accepts a position on the Ethics committee purely to get the favor of being named to the board of the Kennedy Center so he can get free tickets to events there to take dates!) soon catches up with him and while he is working on arming a secret war, he is deeply involved with protecting his own reputation and surviving as a congressman!

I shall note here two very important things: 1. This is a review of the film Charlie Wilson's War. It is not a review of the book, not a commentary on the reality upon which it is based (which I am largely ignorant of) and therefore anything that might be included in the former and omitted from the latter is not my concern. This is a movie and while it references real events, it is being portrayed as a work of historical fiction as opposed to a documentary. Thus "characters" are the characters in the film and how they work as cinematic characters. 2. I am a known liberal and a pacifist (quite proudly). I am one who stands against the pseudo-patriotic flag-waving and drum beating that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States of America. And the best possible statement I can make about how well-written and how well-directed Charlie Wilson's War was is this: the moment an Afghan freedom fighter launches his first rocket and takes out a Soviet helicopter, I let out a small cheer (fortunately the theater was almost entirely empty, which is very sad on another level).

Charlie Wilson's War is very much ingrained with the process of political machinations that change the world. It's stunning to consider that Charlie Wilson is one of 435 congresspeople and that his focus on this single issue is mirrored by 434 other people on other issues. It's amazing the world isn't changed entirely by the machinations of congress, save that the idealists are often weeded out before elections and their ambitions are (sometimes fortunately!) kept in check by the Senate. This is completely relevant to an exploration of this film because of the whole plot involving Joanne.

Joanne is a woman who uses religion and money to influence politics and the true tragedy of the film comes in the very last scene before the return to the "present day" of the film. Joanne is portrayed throughout the film as a woman of wealth, influence and principle and she knows how to use money and the idea of morals to influence others with power. The failure that comes at the end of the movie, wherein $1,000,000 is denied to Charlie Wilson is well within the means of Joanne Herring. That private financiers like her did not step up when the government failed is disturbing and baffling.

In the context of the film, this is even more troubling than in reality, as Joanne is portrayed consistently as a woman who delights in using her influence and flexing her muscle. That the character delights in foiling the communists, but exhibits no responsibility in the aftermath undermines the good she does, which is the subtle commentary of the film, which is made not at all subtle in the end. Indeed, attentive viewers who are politically involved now will easily note that many of the names thrown around as potential allies who were armed by the United States are now people we have listed as enemies in our current wars.

Again, as someone who is not a September 11th rally fanatic, it speaks to the quality of the movie that when Gust and Charlie take a few minutes to contemplate what the effect of their machinations might be, the film stops with a shot squarely on Charlie's face and we hear a jet turbine that seems remarkably specific . . .

The characters in Charlie Wilson's War are surprisingly well fleshed out given that the film is only 97 minutes long! There are four essential characters (most would say only three, but . . .) who run the efforts to change the world through toppling the Soviet regime via Afghanistan: Bonnie, Joanne, Gust and Charlie.

Bonnie is Charlie's congressional aide, his right hand and his conscience. She is efficient, completely human and essential to keeping Charlie grounded. She heads a staff of congressional aides to the womanizing Charlie that look like Hollywood bombshells, yet are eminently qualified at their tasks as can be seen as they try to neutralize the investigation into Wilson's stripper friends. Bonnie is played by Amy Adams and she does quite well playing off the big three celebrities in the piece. As a nod to his work on The West Wing, Sorkin's inclusion of Bonnie continues the long tradition of incredibly useful and underpaid assistants to those in power.

Joanne is a fiercely independent woman who has connections on Capitol Hill that are so extensive that she knows within hours about changes to the covert budgets. She is a personal friend of Pakistan's President Zia and she knows the soft points of all the people in power, how to exploit what they believe for her desired goals. She loathes communism (possibly because of her own fabulous wealth) and works to keep money flowing into politicians she likes, leaving them indebted to her. As well, she has a soft side, specifically for Charlie. In tender moments, away from the politics, she is characterized as a woman who has wounds she struggles to hide and a flirtatious nature that makes her a natural match for Charlie.

Gust is easily the most enjoyable character in the film, beginning his tenure in the piece with yelling at his boss in a way many of us wish we could. He is cranky, acerbic and incredibly intelligent. What he lacks in social skills, he more than makes up for in usefulness and he carries a somewhat sad quality to him as well.

And then there is Charlie. Charlie Wilson is initially characterized as an inconsequential Representative whose only care in the world is drinking, having a good time with strippers and admiring the female form. Sure, he takes his meaningless votes seriously, as he takes his constitutional separation of powers and protections of freedoms seriously (all of this is illustrated early on in the film) and when his lack of issue statements allows him to build up a voting record that has helped many people, Charlie becomes uniquely able to call in favors to change the world through the plan he and Gus execute!

Tom Hanks is good as Charlie Wilson. Actually, he suffers from "Carrey's Frewer Riddler Syndrome," as I call it. In Batman Forever, arguably a vehicle that was cashing in on Jim Carrey's tremendous celebrity at the time, Jim Carrey portrays Matthew Frewer playing the Riddler. Anyone familiar with Frewer's works will instantly catch that Jim Carrey is doing a spot on interpretation of Frewer. The movie could have saved some money and gone with the less famous actor and had the same effect. Tom Hanks as Charlie Wilson is playing Christopher Rich playing Charlie Wilson. Indeed, Hanks plays Wilson almost identical to the way Rich played Senator Jefferson on the episode of The Lone Gunmen he played in! So, this somewhat understated, good-natured, possibly a little dim role may be a stretch for Hanks, but he plays it just like Christopher Rich. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

What Hanks does very well is play off Julia Roberts, who portrays Joanne. The best I can say about Roberts here is that she plays Joanne as understated as possible given the role is flashy by nature. I am not, traditionally, a fan of Julia Roberts as she often plays remarkably similar characters that do not stretch her acting abilities. Here, the role is unlike anything I have seen her play and she lives up to the hype. She is articulate, emotive without being stiff and surprisingly authoritative with the jargon. And on the turn of a dime, she becomes soft and subtly manipulative, most notably in a scene in an Afghan refugee camp when her character is walking a high-ranking member of the committee through and inspiring him to speak to the crowd and make a promise to them. In that scene she rules and the truth is that there is not a moment after she begins speaking that I felt I was watching Julia Roberts instead of Joanne.

But it is Phillip Seymour Hoffman who rules Charlie Wilson's War from the acting perspective. Ever since he appeared in the second greatest film of all time, Magnolia, I've been fascinated with his work. He had a wonderfully emotive performance in that film and finding a role that would top it has been a challenge for Hoffman. This is it, though. In this he plays Gust as a zen master one moment, a screaming ball of unrepressed anger the next. Hoffman is charged with making both extremes - and it seems Gust seldom exists outside the extremes - believable. Hoffman makes the viewer believe in the credibility of the middle-aged spymaster who has been passed over for career advancement and opportunities through his slouch, his delivery (no one can yell "Fuck you!" the way Hoffman can!) and the way he is able to focus when he has to to embody a strong sense of professionalism. In Charlie Wilson's War, Hoffman becomes a model for acting students everywhere with his range and versatility.

I am not much for special effects in films, but I have to say that Charlie Wilson's War does the spectacle thing right. Director Mike Nichols integrated historical footage from the '80s into the film and he does not hide the footage as it has obvious film quality differences. My only peeve with this is that it is not until near the end of the film that Nichols makes explicit how much time this whole process has taken, which is bothersome. He makes up for it with one of the most subtle and decent effects shots I've seen in recent films. Charlie stands in a refugee camp that is massive and an experienced moviegoer will instantly realize this is Tom Hanks standing in front of a bluescreen shot. It's a flawless merge, though. The effects department beautifully melds the shot so it looks like Hanks is actually there. Most viewers will likely miss it because it is so well executed!

It is worth noting as well that one of the selling points of Charlie Wilson's War was that Julia Roberts appears in a bikini in it. Honestly, the dialogue and mood at the time this comes up completely overshadows the spectacle of seeing yet another Hollywood-beautiful woman in a bathing suit. And yes, we do see Hanks' backside, and yet it is strangely unmemorable as the context makes it seem completely natural. Sadly, that scene - considering it is preceded by several breasts - is what will keep this film from being shown in high school classes in years to come. Tools.

Now on DVD, Charlie Wilson's War is presented well, but with depressingly few DVD bonus features. Indeed, there are only two featurettes, a behind-the-scenes and a biographic feature on the real Charlie Wilson. Given the number of big players and the importance of this story, one wishes for more, like a full-length commentary track (or three!) throughout the film.

So, who will like Charlie Wilson's War? Anyone who likes drama about the workings of establishment machines. This is not strictly a war movie and it is certainly not a straight comedy, though amid even the most serious scenes there are usually comedic lines (that's very Sorkin!). And it works. This is a wonderful character study of a man living up to his potential and those who enable him to do that. It's an understated drama that is a little plot-heavy, but for the most part, it's the story that shows how one of America's biggest sausages was made.

And now, more than ever, it's important people see that.

For other films that are essentially process stories, please check out my reviews of:
Wall Street
The Verdict
Flash Of Genius

7/10

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

© 2010, 2008, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |