Carnage To Catharsis The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 Is A Dismal End!

The Good: Moments of theme and performance, Special effects
The Bad: Unlikable or under-developed characters, Plot oscillates between predictable and undeveloped, Resolution
The Basics: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 puts to rest a series that managed to get produced at the right time . . . but will not satisfy serious film buffs.


When it comes to The Hunger Games, the truth is, the franchise did not particularly grab me. I was pretty much repulsed by The Hunger Games (reviewed here!) and while I liked Catching Fire (reviewed here!) well-enough, Mockingjay - Part 1 (reviewed here!) pretty much lost me. I just don't care about Panem. So, I was in no rush to run out and see The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2. But, with it being a holiday and me being on the road alone, I figured it was time to pay my Hunger Games dues and take in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2.

Right off the bat, I've not read the books upon which the films in The Hunger Games Saga were based. This is a pure review of the film and the movie confirmed what I suspected the moment I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1: Part 1 should have ended the moment the rescued Peeta Mellark reached up and began struggling Katniss Everdeen. Instead, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 begins with the potential of a young woman literally finding her voice and then rising up to raise a rebellion; instead, it is a movie about a mediocre woman using violence to solve her problems. Katniss Everdeen is supposed to be the hero fans root for, but Finnick made more substantive leaps in exposing the corruptions of President Snow, tyrant leader of Panem, in the prior film. Katniss does not follow Finnick's example in using logic, truth, and helping to turn the people of Panem against the corrupt President; as in the prior films, she mopes around until she shoots her problems away with her bow.

Having rescued Peeta from the Capitol, the rebels in District 13 are horrified to see how he has been brainwashed into an animal, intent on killing Katniss. Katniss, however, fights to keep Peeta alive and she is eager to end the conflict with Snow by getting support from other Districts. Her first attempt to shoot a propaganda film amid revolutionaries and refugees ends up with her getting shot. With the rebellion apparently crumbling, President Snow starts to weed out those close to him who might be political rivals, using poison like Finnick previously revealed. Despite being loathed now by Peeta, Katniss tries desperately to save him and be close to him, even though he is still violent from the venom that was used on him by the Capitol.

After Annie and Finnick marry, Katniss joins the squad being sent into the Capitol to disarm the traps that Snow has set. En route to Snow's mansion, Katniss and her companions are beset by creatures, weapons, and obstacles - much like the victors of the Hunger Games encountered during the games - and from Peeta's inability to control himself or overcome his programming. But as the resistance nears victory, Katniss gets information that suggests to her that Snow might not be the only villain in Panem and when someone close to Katniss is murdered as part of political theater, Katniss decides she alone must end it.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 failed to do what I've been waiting for in all of the films in The Hunger Games Saga: it did not make me care about the characters or Panem. Yes, oppression is absolutely terrible, but Panem in the films of The Hunger Games is a fiefdom of Districts serving the Capitol at a cost of two lives per District per year (one for the victor's district). The system has been working for 74 years at the beginning of The Hunger Games and, substantively, it is analogous to an unrestrained Capitalist system with an authoritarian government, so it was a hard dystopia for me to get into or care about (we have it as bad in real life; we just get to go to the movies and get a new smartphone once in a while). The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 fails to make the viewer invested in the world of Panem.

Even worse, in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 it is almost impossible to care what becomes of the film's protagonist. There is no allegory in the film, so Katniss heals until she acts, mopes until she rages and the journey is unsatisfying . . . especially when one considers it without the "wow" factor of the special visual effects. Add to that, the love triangle where Katniss's heart is pulled by both Gale and Peeta is expanded in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2, which feels like a time drain in an already packed film. The love triangle could have been left out and perhaps a scene could have been put in where Katniss sees evidence of the film's other primary villain, as opposed to simply taking other people's words for it.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 is notable in its underuse of performers Jena Malone (who, frankly, I can always stand to see more of in films) and Stanley Tucci. Elizabeth Banks plays Effie Trinket with less of an annoying quality than in the prior installment, so at least her talents are not as wasted this time around.

Ultimately, though, the time is wasted. Who lives? Who dies? It doesn't matter, so long as there's an Evangelical-friendly scene to cap off the movie with utter denial of the initial characterizations of the characters the corniest summing up of the events of the Saga. That, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 absolutely has.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
SPECTRE
Bleeding Heart
Hotel Transylvania 2

3.5/10

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.
| | |

Unfantastic Fantasy: Why The Seventh Son Flops!

The Good: Creature design, Moments when the cast lives up
The Bad: Terrible acting, Dull story, Obvious character arcs
The Basics: The Seventh Son creates a fantasy realm where witches are hunted and good actors give lousy performances!


It seems that there is far less of a stigma these days against genre films. I’m glad for that; it helps to raise the bar of acting in genre works. Unfortunately, talent is not always used that way; since Emma Thompson, Jeremy Irons and Emmy Rossum appeared in the terrible Beautiful Creatures (reviewed here!), it has been painfully clear that some studios are hedging their bets on their weaker properties by using higher caliber actors, as opposed to investing in stories, writers, and directors that can fix problems before the project is ever cast. The enthusiasm I had for seeing Julianne Moore and Jeff Bridges together again – they were wonderful together in The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) – quickly faded as The Seventh Son went on.

Sadly, the longer The Seventh Son goes on, the more blasé the film appears. Moore and Daniels are window dressing for a sub-par hero story where there are no real surprises and no genuine hook. In fact, the caliber of the two main, established, performers (and Djimon Hounsou) is truly all that saves The Seventh Son from being a complete lemon.

With the rise of the Blood Moon, the dragon form of Mother Malkin becomes more powerful and manages to break out of her confinement. In a nearby village, at the tavern, Billy Bradley tries to get Master Gregory to come to the aid of a possessed girl. After a local pushes the issue and the ancient Master puts the man in his place and accompanies Bradley to the girl. Exorcising Malkin from the girl, Malkin regains her serpent form and takes possession of Bradley to free herself (and his demise). Nearby, Tom Ward is plagued by visions while slopping the pigs and soon he is visited by Master Gregory. Gregory believes that Ward is the next protector or the realm, as he is the seventh son of the seventh son. So, buying Tom from his family to become his apprentice, Gregory takes Tom Ward away to train before the Blood Moon rises and the local witches, led by Malkin, reach their full power.

Ward inadvertently rescues a young woman, accused of being a witch, who actually is a witch. When the most dangerous assassin of Malkin’s, Urag, pops back up (he’s something like a werebear originally), Master Gregory gets worried and he sees that Ward is less willing to kill witches than he would hope. But as Malkin begins exerting her dark influence over the realm, Ward and his romantic interest see the disastrous potential of her coming to rule and they work to stop her.

The Seventh Son is a hard sell from the get go. A few years back the Underworld franchise did the whole “Supernatural Romeo And Juliet” thing pretty well with Underworld: Rise Of The Lycans (reviewed here!), so the whole “romantic” subplot in The Seventh Son falls pretty flat. The Seventh Son has a more fantastic world, filled with more varies supernatural and undead creatures than Underworld, but there is also a significantly lower sizzle factor in The Seventh Son; the character relationships are far less compelling and genuine. Perhaps the backstory between Gregory and Mother Malkin would be more potent if it were shown at the film’s outset, instead of growled to the audience as Obvious Expository Backstory midway through the movie.

On the acting front, Julianne Moore does fine as the villainous Mother Malkin, though her character’s motivations are never convincingly realized. She is something of a villain for the sake of a villain and that is not something Moore has a lot of room to play around with. Jeff Bridges growls through all of his lines in a way that makes his character from R.I.P.D. (reviewed here!) seem like a great orator. Ben Barnes as stiff at Tom Ward and he seems the least comfortable, on screen, working with digital characters and settings, which is odd because he has worked in other special-effects driven films before. His on-screen romantic interest has very little chemistry with him.

The special effects are generally good; the creature design is interesting and there is a sense in watching the film that there is a very magical world being presented. But the state of the setting it not nearly enough to sell the mundane story and characters the viewer never truly connects with. The result is a pretty typical February Flop in the form of The Seventh Son.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
Vice
American Sniper
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Imitation Game
Birdman

3.5/10

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.
| | |

The Agony Of Losing Everything: Still Alice Is Wonderfully Made . . . But Tough To Watch!

The Good: Amazing acting, Good issues, Decent character development, Soundtrack
The Bad: Thematically overbearing to the point of being unwatchable
The Basics: Still Alice is, rightly, one of the best films of the year, but its subject matter is so difficult to watch that it quickly loses any sense of entertainment and becomes grueling to sit through.


As Oscar Pandering Season reaches its climax, there has been a lot of buzz surrounding Julianne Moore in Still Alice. Moore is an accomplished actress and the problem with her come awards time now is that she is, quite simply, too good. After roles in Boogie Nights (reviewed here!), The Kids Are All Right (reviewed here!), Game Change (reviewed here!), and – at the entirely other end of the spectrum - Evolution (reviewed here!), Julianne Moore has illustrated such a range and ability that it is hard to imagine a role she could not absolutely nail. So, when Moore took on the role of Dr. Alice Howland for Still Alice, the attention the role is getting feels in some ways like Moore is up this year for a lifetime achievement award.

Still Alice is a film based upon the novel by the same name. It is worth noting that I have not read the novel, so this is a pure review of the film Still Alice. Still Alice is a drama focused on a woman with a degenerative medical condition, which might make for a downer during the holidays, but it is the exact type of film that gets nominated for awards (and wins) . . . even if they only reach a limited audience and have an appeal that makes it difficult to imagine rewatching/adding to one’s permanent collection. Still Alice is very much the archetypal patient drama for an Oscar Pandering Season release.

Dr. Alice Howland is a Linguistics professor at Columbia University in New York City who is an expert in lingual development. After her fiftieth birthday, Dr. Howland begins to forget words and she gets lost while out running on the campus (which is a familiar place to her). After multiple visits to a neurologist, Dr. Howland is diagnosed with an early-onset familial (genetic) Alzheimer’s Disease. When she and her husband tell their adult children, they are all – predictably – alarmed. Alice’s daughter, Anna, and her son, Tom, get genetic testing done and Anna (who is trying to get pregnant with her husband) is alarmed when her test comes back positive. Despite Tom being relieved that his is negative, he is concerned about his mother while his romantic relationship falls apart.

At an alarming rate, Dr. Howland’s memory begins to degrade. She has to ask her students for what lesson they are studying and soon cannot even teach. Her husband, John, is a scientist and his attempts at advocacy often come across as clinical, when she is looking for emotional support. Dr. Howland starts to rely upon her smartphone for identifying people, remembering names, and scheduling every aspect of her life. As everyone in the family tries to reconnect with Alice, Dr. Howland loses more and more of her memory, her ability to control her body and even her ability to speak.

The site I used to right for had a simple ratings system for its reviewers: in addition to giving a rating on stars (one through five), one had to recommend whether or not they would buy the product. While I have vastly higher standards (my ten-point scale goes down to zero!), one of the things I have found useful about continuing to review is that the model that site used to have could actually be useful. Every once in a long while, I encounter something that is well-created, socially-important, and all around excellent . . . that I cannot stand. Still Alice is one such work.

Life is hard. Life can be impossibly hard and with birth defects, intolerance, AIDS, mental illness, behavioral disorders, sexual abuse and Alzheimer’s Disease in the world, it is hard to imagine there are people who exist in the United States untouched by some form of existential horror. With all that in the world, why would one want to experience such issues in their entertainment baffles me. I suppose for those who have not experienced any permutation on watching a loved one helplessly degrade, Still Alice offers the audience something. For the rest of us, though, it only offers a chance for the performers to play well.

And perform well they do. Given decent material and a good cast, everyone associated with Still Alice shines. Hunter Parrish plays Tom with a seriousness and intelligence that his role in Weeds (reviewed here!) did not allow. His entire body language is different as Tom from his most well-known character. Kristen Stewart gives a wonderful performance where she is not playing a character plumbing the depths of personal misery as Lydia. In fact, it is nice to see Stewart play a character who is something of a freethinker and artist without her ending up drug-addled, painful to watch and/or just skeezy and filthy. For all the attention Julianne Moore is getting with Still Alice, this is one of Kristen Stewart’s best roles and most varied performances.

Dr. John Howland is played by Alec Baldwin and he and Julianne Moore play off one another as a seasoned, married couple so well that it is almost impossible to recall that they played a romantic relationship in the fourth season of 30 Rock (reviewed here!). Baldwin gets through his character’s technobabble exceptionally well. Moore is predictably great as Dr. Alice Howland. The role requires her to look confused, appear to pee herself and slowly change her body language from being a confident woman to a sad, lost, husk of her former self. Moore nails it.

The thing is, it is easy to watch Still Alice and recognize all of the components of greatness. Moore and the rest of the cast have a great script to work with, but the subject is excruciating to watch and is anything but entertaining. Still Alice is like Love And Other Drugs (reviewed here!) but without the charm and romance. Instead, Still Alice is a stark, realistic, painful-to-watch film that is objectively well-created but impossible to recommend to watch and certainly not a movie most people will want to add to their permanent video library.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Voices
Love, Rosie
The Seventh Son
Song One
Match
American Sniper
Vice
Inherent Vice
Selma
Paddington
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
Comet
The Imitation Game
Birdman

9/10 (Not Recommended)

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.
| | |

An Illustration Of Consequences For Those Who Do Not Understand Nuance: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1.

The Good: Themes, Decent use of the expanded cast
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Plot is more set-up than substance
The Basics: More a tease for the final installment, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is thematically heavy-handed and the film is surprisingly easy to skip!


Despite the fact that my review of Catching Fire (that’s here!) remains one of my most-read reviews, I am not what one might call an enthusiast of The Hunger Games franchise. In fact, when the cinematic rendition of The Hunger Games (reviewed here!) was released, I argued that even reviewing it was utterly pointless; the novel series had such a huge fanbase and Lionsgate had thrown so much advertising at the undecided masses that it was going to be a huge phenomenon regardless of critical analysis. At this point, there is little purpose to bothering to review The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, either, except for those who might have soured on the franchise from the first two films and need a reason to go and see it or skip it.

My vote is actually in the “skip it” category. Not since 28 Weeks Later (reviewed here!) has there been such an unnecessary sequel. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is entirely a transition movie and given where it begins (desperately hinging on seeing Catching Fire) and where is ends (with, presumably*, the initiating incident which will finally crystallize the budding rebellion in the world of Panem), it seems like it would be virtually impossible to watch The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 when it is released next year and not get everything that happens in Part 1 from context clues. Seriously; if anyone out there is on the fence and willing to try, I’d love to be proven right on this one! The reason for this is simple: despite the influx of characters into the universe of The Hunger Games, the ones who survive The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 are only incrementally moved in this film. And, on the plot front, what events do occur in the film have ramifications that will undeniably be self-evident in the second part . . . and the rest is just a dressed up version of what we saw in Catching Fire. [* I wrote “presumably” because I have not read the books, so perhaps the final film will take an abrupt right turn from the direction it has been going for the past three films, though I doubt it!]

The 28 Weeks Later analogy is not an inapt one; where 28 Days Later described the horror of uninfected people fleeing crowds of infected individuals and left it up to the viewer, like the protagonist of the film, to grasp the level of horror and change in the world, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 illustrates over and over and over again what Catching Fire began and showed quite enough of. In Catching Fire, President Snow’s tenuous grasp over the 12 Districts of Panem is slipping and he sends in faceless soldiers into the Districts to do things like beat insubordinate old men to death and shoot rebels and menace crowds with firearms just off camera from televised events. We get it; people are rebelling, Snow’s forces are pretty mercilessly killing them. When that, and the 75th Annual Hunger Games, fail utterly, Snow uses his military to bomb Katniss Everdeen’s home district right off the map. We get it.

So, where Catching Fire unfortunately repeated the plot conceit of The Hunger Games for its latter half, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 browbeats the audience with repetition of Snow’s desperate attempts to retain power and control over the districts that pay tribute to his Capital. Where Catching Fire had an old man getting his head blown off, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 ups the stakes with a line-up of children. Snow, apparently, is not the only one too stupid to realize that if fear failed to keep people in line, more fear won’t stop the rebellious forced; director Francis Lawrence and the screenwriters assume the audience needs to see more and more violent incidents to understand that.

We don’t.

Following her arrival in the subterranean District 13, Katniss Everdeen learns that the world of Panem is on the edge of full-scale revolution. Despite District 12 being obliterated, Katniss’s losses are remarkably small; she is reunited with her sister and Gale in District 13. There, she meets District 13’s “President,” Alma Coin. Coin and Plutarch Heavensbee want Katniss to become the symbolic leader of the revolution, a figurehead that will galvanize their movement. But Katniss is frustrated and determined that Peeta be rescued from the clutches of President Snow. When Peeta, who was captured after the arena was destroyed during the climax of the last Hunger Games, is shown on broadcasts as enemies to the Rebellion, Katniss is convinced that Peeta has been brainwashed and must be saved.

In exchange for committing forces to a rescue operation, Katniss allows Coin and Heavensbee to use her for their own propaganda machine. The result is a conflict that does not climax, a character whose heroic journey is stalled, and a film that seems much more like filler than flash.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is thematically unsettling in that protagonist Katniss Everdeen, who worked very hard to resist being a part of Snow’s propaganda machine in the prior installment, is willing to be a part of Coin’s media blitz against Snow in this one. Either way, she’s just a tool and like Snow menacing her family in exchange for her campaigning and illustrating love for Peeta, Coin withholds resources to rescue Peeta until Katniss commits to help her cause.

Unfortunately, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 flops even more in-context of the larger Saga . . . for anyone who has a memory. Katniss Everdeen didn’t love Peeta in The Hunger Games, she did not particularly love him in Catching Fire (though she was protective of him). In Mockingjay – Part 1, Katniss is more obsessed with saving Peeta without having an emotional connection to him to back that up. Katniss seemed happiest in District 12 when she was with Gale and now she and Gale could be together; from the moment Peeta first appears in Mockingjay – Part 1, the damage he can do is done. He is Snow’s mouthpiece. For a character who has no genuine love for him, assassination should bear the same emotional effect as rescue (a loss to a rebel is a loss to a rebel; how one commits resources says a lot). In the simplest possible terms, Katniss feels more like she is going through the motions with pushing for a rescue attempt as opposed to a character who has a heartfelt love and genuinely likes the guy she is concerned with.

To that end, Jennifer Lawrence does what she can with the role that spends much more time being passive and lackluster than truly compelling. Katniss Everdeen is barely the hero in the process of becoming, as opposed to the “political pawn who realizes she’s actually a rook;” Lawrence has very little she can do with such a limited character.

The rest of the cast is as good as the writing allows them to be. Josh Hutcherson may be bland as a love interest, but as a brainwashed figurehead delivering Snow’s talking points, he seems to have found his niche. Jenna Malone’s time on screen makes no real use of the actress's talents; her character is an afterthought and her appearance is little more than a cameo near the climax of the film. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland each return to their roles flawlessly. Julianne Moore, Mahershala Ali, and Robert Knepper join the cast and integrate well. Moore is given the most screentime of the new arrivals and she is exactly what she needs to be in order to sell the character of President Coin. She is dignified enough to be realistically presidential and she delivers the character’s strategies with a sense of pragmatism that makes her a good embodiment of a rebel. While Jeffrey Wright is simply continuing his role of Beetee, he is a pleasure to watch; the part of the intellectual with a grasp of both physical and political sciences suits him well.

Ultimately, though, none of the performances are so superlative that they become the “must see” embodiment of any of the actors’ talents, the characters are not drastically transformed in a way that the next film would not have to say (yet again) what happened to them and the themes are nothing new to the audience of the first two The Hunger Games. The result is a film that may be very safely skipped.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Seventh Son
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
Comet
Horrible Bosses 2
10,000 Days
Interstellar

4/10

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.
| | |

Hilarity Ensues Again And Again And Again: 30 Rock The Complete Series!

The Good: Character development, Very funny, Some great lines, Good serialization.
The Bad: As the show goes on, it becomes incredibly predictable and somewhat repetitive, Performances are largely unremarkable
The Basics: 30 Rock is a smart and funny serialized comedy that plays well to those who like great lines and interesting characters . . . though it does get a bit repetitive.


In the pantheon of half hour sitcoms, there are the groundbreaking, the memorable and pretty much everything else. That might seem like an oversimplification, but there is some truth to the idea that outside the groundbreaking and memorable, sitcoms are either terrible or shows one enjoys while watching, but does not give much thought to when they are not. The sitcom is often simple diversion programming; fun to watch, forgettable when it is not on. 30 Rock has some memorable lines, but over the course of seven seasons, the series became a much less distinctive and compelling program. That is not to say 30 Rock is at all unenjoyable, but it is not groundbreaking and there were long stretches of unmemorable episodes (even if they contained memorable or hilarious lines).

As a complete series set, 30 Rock is a collection of all seven seasons of 30 Rock, a Tina Fey vehicle that reignited the career of Alec Baldwin and kept Lorne Michael relevant for a while longer (ironically, as 30 Rock came to an end, all of the best recent talents on Saturday Night Live left the show, leading to another ebb in the sketch comedy series). The Complete Series of 30 Rock consists of:
Season 1
Season 2
Season 3
Season 4
Season 5
Season 6
and Season 7

30 Rock has a fairly uncomplicated plot: Liz Lemon is the head writer and executive producer of The Girlie Show, a sketch comedy show that stars her best friend since college, Jenna Maroney. But when Lemon’s boss is replaced by Jack Donaghy, a fairly conservative businessman, Liz Lemon’s show quickly slips from her control. Donaghy has Liz hire the somewhat deranged celebrity Tracy Jordan and changes the name of the show to TGS With Tracy Jordan. The shift brings in the demographics The Girlie Show was lacking and revitalizes Liz Lemon’s show. Unfortunately for her, Tracy Jordan is notoriously difficult to work with and Jenna refuses to play nice with him, as she is used to being the celebrity on the show.

In addition to being a workaholic, Liz Lemon has no real libido or romantic life. Jack Donaghy takes it upon himself to professionally and personally mentor Lemon. In the process of trying to straighten out Lemon’s love life, Donaghy becomes deeply involved with the lives of the people who work for him, including Tracy, Jenna, and the weird television-loving hillbilly page, Kenneth. Jack finds love in unlikely sources (like a liberal Congresswoman) and struggles to find his place in a changing marketplace where businessmen like him are no longer as relevant or powerful as they once were, while Liz Lemon tries to keep Tracy at work, Jenna productive (and not breaking into showboating songs) and her director, Pete, alive (he has a dark, depressed side, stemming from his stress at home with his wife and children). As the series progresses, conflicts include Tracy running off in fear of his life, Jenna dating a Jenna Maroney impersonator, Jack’s new wife getting abducted by North Korea, and Liz dating a man that Jack does not approve of.

30 Rock is funny, but is a great example of a show that struggled after a period to find its place and rhythm. Tracy Jordan runs off multiple times in the series, Jenna Maroney’s hissy fits get old and the show stops doing smart cutaways (early in the show there are references to such brilliantly satirical things as Tracy Jordan’s novelty pop song “Werewolf Bar Mitzvah” that are not attempted as the series goes on) and replaces them with more predictable and banal banter between Liz and Jack. That said, 30 Rock succeeds in that it only has one real obvious dud of an episode (a reality show based on Tracy Jordan’s wife is made and one episode is simply an episode of the awful reality show!), which is pretty astonishing for a series with over a hundred and thirty episodes. While it is on, 30 Rock is fun and engaging and well worth watching. It’s a bit tougher to invest in the complete series, though, because when it becomes tired, it is more average than extraordinary, but the show’s inertia is likely to make one sit through the episodes that are more stagnant than brilliant.

30 Rock had a good mix of characters and one of the more stable casts on television. For the seven seasons of 30 Rock, the essential characters are:

Liz Lemon – The hard-working Executive Producer and head writer of TGS With Tracy Jordan, she carved out a niche writing sketch comedy for her best friend, Jenna. In addition to having a loser ex-boyfriend (beeper salesman and sex offender Dennis Duffy), Liz is an idealist who believes in fairness and wants to see people treated well. Socially inept, she is unused to actually leading, so Jack takes her under his wing and grooms her to be a more authoritative presence who he can actually use for his own corporate gain. In exchange, Liz becomes a confidant for the powerful businessman and becomes more confident in her personal life,

Tracy Jordan – The high-maintenance star of TGS, he is unreliable, often blowing off rehersals to visit strip clubs. Accompanied by an entourage – mainly Grizz and Dot Com – he embodies an unfortunate number of stereotypes about the rich, young, black comedian. Chronically late and difficult to work with, he seldom follows his lines (which initially makes Liz and Pete wonder if he is illiterate), spends obscene amounts of money on worthless things, and avoids his wife and children whenever possible. As his popularity rises, he puts to rest old feuds in the black community and his wife asserts more control over him, his finances, and his career, which complicates both Jack and Liz lives more,

Jenna Maroney – The showboating, bratty star of The Girlie Show, she deals with the change of focus for her show very poorly. Always ready to burst into a song, she will do anything for attention. Despite Liz’s loyalty to her, she shows very little loyalty or friendship to Liz, though she does what she can to keep on Jack’s good side when she recognizes his wealth and power,

Pete Hornberger – The director of TGS With Tracy Jordan and Liz’s right hand man, he is an awkward middle-aged man who is fairly constantly berated. He has a wife and children, though he and his wife fight a lot and he is afraid of at least one of his kids. He helps Liz out, but mostly just shows up and keeps the writer’s room and Kenneth in line,

Kenneth Parcell – A page at NBC, he is incredibly naïve and physically awkward. Very much a product of his redneck upbringing, he has never really adapted to New York City. As a result, he becomes an object of curiosity to Jack. Kenneth has a very pure love of all things related to television and fights to get ridiculous programming on the air when Jack needs ideas. He often finds himself doing grunt work or odd tasks for Tracy, whom he idolizes for no other reason than his celebrity,

And Jack Donaghy – Occasionally an outcast in the business world, Jack is the new head of East Coast Microwave and Television Programming for General Electric (which owns NBC in the 30 Rock universe). He wants to make the programming as profitable as possible so he might be the natural successor to his hero at GE when the time comes. As a result, he is often at odds with Liz Lemon over on-air content on TGS With Tracy Jordan, though he quickly develops a personal affinity for Liz. He dates supermodels and businesswomen and in the course of the series even marries! He struggles, though, when NBC is sold to a television-focused company, Kabletown, and he has to re-evaluate his priorities and methods.

One of the weaknesses in 30 Rock is the acting, which is ironic considering how good Alec Baldwin (Jack Donaghy) and Tina Fey (Liz Lemon) are in their roles. Tracy Morgan (Tracy Jordan) plays a character remarkably similar to himself – or his public persona from his stand-up comedy routines and intervies – and Jane Krakowski (Jenna Maroney) is essentially reprising her needy character from Ally McBeal (reviewed here!). Other actors are stuck in types – Jack McBrayer performs a lot of physical comedy as Kenneth, Judah Friedlander hits the one-note of sarcasm constantly as Frank Rossitano, and Keith Powell’s “Toofer” is essentially Friedlander’s straightman for almost the entire series. None of the roles particularly stretch the talents of the performers in them.

Still, 30 Rock looks good on DVD and the featurettes included in the set are funny and discuss the genesis and conclusion of the show in enough detail to make them worthwhile. But 30 Rock peaks early and nowhere is that more clear than when one sits down and goes through the entire series. This is a set one is likely to enjoy, put on the shelf for years and forget about, then pick up, dust off, and binge on the entire thing again before forgetting about it again.

For other shows that air(ed) on NBC, please check out my reviews of:
Revolution - Season 1
Parenthood – Season 1
The West Wing
Heroes
Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip
Friends
Frasier
NewsRadio
Homicide: Life On The Streets
Cheers
V - The Television Series
Star Trek

7/10

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

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

Flight Meets Taken With Non-Stop

The Good: Decent acting, Good pacing
The Bad: Very familiar plot/character structure
The Basics: Liam Neeson and a strong supporting cast make the very familiar elements of Non-Stop into a cinematic experience that is nonetheless enjoyable.


I wonder how Liam Neeson feels about being an action hero at his age. Having watched Neeson establish himself on films like The Mission (reviewed here!) and Schindler’s List (reviewed here!), it seems interesting that he changed the direction of his career (or allowed it to be changed). With his latest film, Non-Stop, he is once again playing more of an action hero than a cerebral character. Non-Stop is smarter than most hostage dramas or action thrillers, but it does degenerate into a pretty typical action movie.

The most refreshing aspect of Non-Stop is actually in how conventional it actually is. Early in the film, it appears like Non-Stop will change into a painfully predictable psychological thriller; Non-Stop has a man using a Blackberry-style smartphone and the early clues make it seem like it might be Bill himself orchestrating the threat to the plane he is on. Fortunately, Non-Stop is not an aerial Hide And Seek (reviewed here!) and the hero is appropriately heroic and the villains of the movie actually make enough sense to have orchestrated the events surrounding Bill Marks and the transatlantic flight.

Bill Marks is aboard a non-stop flight to London, drinking, and stressed. He is seated next to Jen, who is an incredibly calm woman who switches to take a window seat. At 10:53 P.M., Bill gets a text message over the plane’s secure network. The message reveals that there is someone aboard the plane (as they reference Bill going into the bathroom and smoking) who wants $150 million transferred to a specific account or someone on the plane will die in twenty minutes. Marks has to reveal himself as an air marshal when the threat is made and he enlists Jen and the flight attendant, Nancy.

Watching the footage of the video cameras, Bill realizes that the other air marshal, Jack Hammond, is the one making the extortion attempt. Confronting him, Bill has to kill the other marshal in order to incapacitate him. The TSA Agent back in the U.S., Marenick, relieves Bill of duty and has the pilot take away his badge and gun when it seems that the text messages Bill received were from an account in his name. Reviewing Hammond’s phone, Marks realizes that Hammond was being extorted for a briefcase full of cocaine he was transporting. Regrouping, Bill, Nancy, and Jen search for the extortionist before they can kill again.

Non-Stop takes its time getting going. The film works to establish Bill Marks well before he is revealed to be an air marshal. He seems like just a strung-out alcoholic who hates flying and has a little bit of a temper. But once in the air and menaced, Marks becomes a surprisingly sober, methodical investigator and it is easy to empathize with him. The film has several of the genre conceits; the plucky sidekick (Jen) and the obvious element that needs protecting (there is a little girl on the flight who Marks helps calm down and actually get on the plane), but the idea that there is a conspiratorial network as opposed to a single villain plays out well in Non-Stop.

On the acting front, it’s hard not to be thrilled to see Corey Stoll in something new. Stoll was a breakout performer in the first season of House Of Cards (reviewed here!) and Non-Stop uses his ability to play irritated and somewhat tormented well, while still giving him the chance to go deeper as Austin Reilly. Director Jaume Collet-Serra might focus the camera on Stoll in ways that immediately arouse the audience’s suspicion, but Stoll does a decent job of making Reilly interesting-enough on his own.

The film’s leads, Liam Neeson and Julianne Moore are solid as Bill Marks and Jen Summers, respectively. Neeson does fine as Marks, but he does not give the viewer anything they have not seen from him before. Similarly, we’re used to seeing Julianne Moore as smart, perceptive, collected characters, so Summers is no stretch for her, either. That said, the two leads are smart and gracious enough to give the supporting actors Scoot McNairy, Anson Mount, Michelle Dockery (who adds the realistic human element in the form of Nancy the flight attendant), Nate Parker, and Lupita Nyong’o the chance to shine and make their minor characters have a similar amount of depth in the world of Non-Stop as the leads. All of the characters feel like they fit into the world as Non-Stop presents it and the actors have a lot to do with making the one-dimensional characters seem deeper.

Non-Stop is not a great film or an overly original thriller, but it uses the familiar conceits well and in a way that does not insult the viewer’s intelligence, which is refreshing for a February film release!

For other action films, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Never Say Never Again
16 Blocks

6.5/10

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

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

Bringing The Substance Without The Empathy, Game Change Is Good, Not Great!

The Good: Acting, Historical/insider information
The Bad: Fails to make any of the protagonists at all empathetic, Mixed media
The Basics: Game Change is not at all a timeless look at the 2008 presidential election from the Republican side.


Two summers ago, while my wife and I were working in different cities, she had access to cable television (whereas I did not). One night, she saw the film Game Change on HBO and for more than a year, she was telling me how I absolutely had to see the film. Our local library finally managed to get the movie in on DVD and we watched it immediately. I can see why she was excited: Julianne Moore does a startlingly good interpretation of Sarah Palin and offers a nice alternative to the slightly over-the-top Tina Fey presentation.

Game Change is a biography produced for HBO and it is worth noting that for all my love of politics, I am not intimately aware of the backroom dealings involved with making Sarah Palin the vice presidential candidate. I saw her public blunders, but the subject of Game Change is the behind-the-scenes Sarah Palin and McCain campaign; I’ll have no commentary on how the film stacks up as a historical document (for truth). That said, Game Change is entertaining, but it fails to make its protagonist empathetic. If anything, Game Change illustrates how little control John McCain had over his own campaign, how problematic a variable Sarah Palin was and how poorly Palin was prepared for a national campaign.

After a particularly rough Republican primary season, John McCain surprises the pundits to gain the Republican nomination for President of the United States in 2008. After the campaign accidentally leaks McCain’s plan to put Democrat Joseph Lieberman on the ticket with him, McCain appeals to his campaign leadership – Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis – to find a celebrity-style candidate to run opposite Obama to stop the hemorrhage of voters to the Democrats. With a limited vetting process, Schmidt suggests that McCain take Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Sarah Palin leaps onto the ticket and instantly energizes the campaign.

Unfortunately, as Palin’s handler, Nicolle Wallace soon discovers, Sarah Palin is not only inexperienced and ill-informed, she has serious issues with her public record and her personal behavior which jeopardizes the McCain/Palin ticket. Palin chastises Wallace for trying to inform her about current events and Wallace resigns from working with Palin out of disgust after multiple public embarrassments. As Palin stumbles through the debates and the Katie Couric interview, the polling numbers for McCain begin to drop and soon the campaign is in an unfortunate freefall from which it never recovers.

Game Change is as frightening as it is insightful. Watching Steve Schmidt and Nicolle Wallace try desperately to frame Sarah Palin as a viable candidate shows some internal political action that most of us are not privy to. That Schmidt becomes far more empathetic than Palin becomes exceptionally problematic for the narrative. That Palin is not an enjoyable or interesting character to watch makes for a troubling trend as far as the story goes. The viewer never starts rooting for Palin or McCain – even knowing the outcome of the election. Unlike Argo (reviewed here!), Game Change lacks real dramatic tension or characters who the viewer cares about.

Also problematic is the way that Game Change incorporates real historical footage with actors from the film. People like Katie Couric appear in historical footage and director Jay Roach replaces real footage of McCain and Palin with their actor counterparts. That makes for an awkward dialectic that is troubling to watch. There is not a seamless quality to flipping between real people and actors.

What Game Change has to make it truly shine is amazing acting. Ed Harris is a strong enough actor to make even a liberal like watching John McCain. Sarah Paulson and Peter MacNicol give amazing supporting performances as Nicolle Wallace and Rick Davis. Paulson says so much with her face that she makes the ending of the film truly land solidly.

Woody Harrelson is wonderful as Steve Schmidt. Having never seen any real, historical, footage of Schmidt, I have no idea how well his performance mimics the real person. However, Harrelson has gravitas on screen that completely sells his plausibility as a high-powered political operator. The story for Game Change, of course, is Julianne Moore. Moore plays Palin and the best possible compliment one can give her is that Moore always seems like she is playing Sarah Palin, not Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin.

On DVD, Game Change features a commentary track and a featurette, neither of which make Sarah Palin a more empathetic character. While Game Change shows how devastating watching Fey must have been for Sarah Palin, the film does little else to humanize the former vice presidential candidate and make the viewer care about her personal struggle . . . or the way she (arguably) cost John McCain the election.

For other works that are or were on HBO, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Veep - Season 1
Game Of Thrones - Season 3
Girls - Season 1
Carnivale
True Blood - Season Five
Rome
Extras
Six Feet Under
Sex & The City - Season Three
Da Ali G Show
Jim Henson's The Storyteller

6/10

Check out how this film compares to others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are organized from best to worst!

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

A Quirky Blend Of Bowling And Hostage Negotiations, The Big Lebowski Is Rightfully A Cult Classic!

The Good: Funny, Decent acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Too often weird for the sake of weird (lack of purpose)
The Basics: Delightfully odd, The Big Lebowski is the film Thomas Pynchon would have made and has a visual style that helps define the greatness of the Coen Brothers.


I was clearly too young when I first watched The Big Lebowski. I know I saw it back after college, but I had no particular affinity (or even memory) of it. So, when the opportunity came for me to watch The Big Lebowski today, I leapt upon it. I think it might be ironic that the day I panned one of Thomas Pynchon’s latest novels, Against The Day (reviewed here!), the highest compliment I can give The Big Lebowski is that this film has a Pynchonesque quality to it. Thomas Pynchon is known for being quirky and meandering and in writing and directing The Big Lebowski, Joel and Ethan Coen create something distinctive that is the most Pynchonesque film I have yet seen.

Like a comedic, less violent version of Payback (reviewed here!), the Coen Brothers blend the story of a man looking for far, far less than others want or expect out of him (like Porter in Payback going through his ordeals for vastly less than most of the gangsters expect, the Dude is really just out to get his rug replaced in The Big Lebowski) with a ransom which may or may not be real. Including dream sequences, quirky characters, and surprisingly good characters, the only real problem with The Big Lebowski might well be that there are so many different collectible versions of the DVD/Blu-Ray and it is sometimes weird for the sake of being weird as opposed to being a cohesive story. It is, honestly, not much of a problem at all.

The Dude (Lebowski) returns home from buying half and half to get his face shoved in his toilet by thugs who demand to know where the money is. One of the thugs urinates on his rug and when they realize that he is not the millionaire that they are trying to shake down, they leave. Inspired by his bowling buddies, the Dude searches for the real Lebowski to get compensation for his rug getting urinated upon. After taking a rug from Lebowski’s house and going bowling (where his rule-bound friend, Walter, draws a gun on an opposing player), the Dude is summoned back to the Lebowski mansion.

Mr. Lebowski’s wife, Bunny, has been kidnapped and Lebowski wants the Dude to act as a courier for the ransom. When talking with Walter, the Dude posits that the rich girl has not even been kidnapped, which Walter decides must be true. Walter throws a false bag – without the ransom money – to the kidnappers, queering the deal. The Dude quickly finds himself threatened by Lebowski, Lebowski’s daughter (who is older than his new wife), a pornographer who Bunny owes money to and, in a completely different context, a pedophilic bowler named Jesus. In hunting down the money, which has been stolen, the Dude is tailed, menaces a fifteen year old and does battle with corrupt cops.

Like a Pynchon novel, The Big Lebowski is populated by ridiculous characters who represent archetypes and agendas that allow the ridiculous plot and plot turns to seem entirely plausible. The Dude is a former hippie, conscientious objector, whose big accomplishment is being an occasional bowler. He essentially becomes a detective due to the apparently wealthy Lebowski and works for a cut off three different people with agendas for the return of Bunny Lebowski. Walter is a psychopath who claims to observe the Sabbath and plays up his status as a veteran.

Thugs and nihilists go up against the Dude and Walter in a caper that includes ransom demands when there is no hostage, a person who cuts off a toe, and a fight that involves one man biting off another man’s ear. Impressively directed by Joel (and, in an uncredited capacity, Ethan) Coen, The Big Lebowski includes dream sequences complete with big dance numbers that have a trippy feeling that is fun to watch. In fact, outside David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!), it is hard to recall a film that so purely captures the blend of drug trips, reality, and dreams as The Big Lebowski. Unlike something like Mulholland Drive, though, The Big Lebowski actually tells a story and in that way, it makes for a eminently satisfying film.

In other words, outside the simple visual styling and the quirky characters, The Big Lebowski is enjoyable because things happen and there is a story to be pieced together. Like the best of Pynchon’s novels, there is substance and themes in The Big Lebowski presented in a way that has a sense of poetry. It is easy to see how the film became a cult classic.

Julianne Moore has a wonderful supporting performance as Maude Lebowski, where she is unlike any other performance she has had. Similarly, the exceptionally brief appearance by John Turturro as Jesus (who the previews might make one suspect has a substantial role in the film) performs with a wonderful sense of physical comedy, a looseness that makes him ridiculous in a way that he plays nowhere else. Steve Buscemi (Donny, the other bowling partner of the Dude), David Huddleston (Lebowski), and Philip Seymour Hoffman all have decent supporting roles that help play off the ridiculousness of Jeff Bridges as the Dude.

John Goodman is predictably wonderful as Walter. The real surprise, though, is Jeff Bridges as the Dude. Bridges, who frequently takes serious roles where he is able to play dignified, is incredible as the slacker, the Dude. Slouching through most of the movie, he presents the character as smart, but also incredibly able to reason at key moments and makes the whole role seem plausible. Bridges has a great physical presence and his expressions of surprise and disappointment are well-played.

The Big Lebowski is funny, clever, and well-presented and well worth watching for anyone who has an appetite for quirky and surprisingly smart.

For other works with Sam Elliott, check out my reviews of:
Marmaduke
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Ghost Rider
Thank You For Smoking
Hulk

9/10

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

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

Everything You Would Expect From A Romantic Comedy. Except Humor. Or Real Romance.

The Good: I suppose the acting; I had not seen Bronson or Moore as lawyers before...
The Bad: Ghastly predictable plot, No genuine character development, Not funny, Not romantic.
The Basics: Tired, predictable and pathetic, Laws Of Attraction offers the viewer nothing genuinely new.


There should be a new word coined to describe a movie whose trailer not only presents the best moments of a movie, but offers a condensed version of the entire film, including scenes at or near the end. Also, people who make movie posters that reveal climactic moments of a film, they should be fired (I'm looking at YOU, people who made the DVD cover to The Notebook!, reviewed here!). I recall seeing a preview of Laws Of Attraction in the theaters, thinking that looked alshone (I'm trying coining now, that's how desperate I am to get this review up to a respectable length!), I don't truly need to see it. Well, the library was closing early today for the holiday and it came down to Laws Of Attraction and the Ashton Kutcher movie Guess Who, so I grabbed this because I have a respect for Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan.

I respect them both a little less now.

Audrey Woods is a successful divorce lawyer who has never lost a case. She is working along in court when one day Daniel Rafferty pops up as opposing counsel. He, too, has never lost a case and his disheveled appearance causes Audrey to be caught off guard when he turns out to be an amazing lawyer. Soon, they are going head to hear in every major divorce in New York City. As they work the divorce of a rock star and fashion designer, Audrey and Daniel supposedly fall in love and accidentally get married.

Of course, if you've seen the alshone preview, you know how it ends, in fact, there are no real surprises. If you haven't seen the trailer, you can probably figure the movie out based upon the plot summary I wrote above. Being completely predictable is one of this film's chief faults. This film offers nothing in the way of surprises, even for those who have not seen any footage from it.

Sadly, for two respectable actors like Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, the movie continues to suffer either from execution or idea. If it suffers from execution, it is about a romance with alcohol. All of the important events between Daniel and Audrey occur when they are under the influence of alcohol. They make love for the first time and get married both while falling-down drunk. In fact, the only time Audrey seems romantically interested in Daniel is when she is completely wasted. I mean, completely.

If the movie suffers from idea, then it fails because Audrey and Daniel are never genuinely romantic with one another. To hold Laws Of Attraction up as a love story is pretty scary when one looks at it objectively. Two people get drunk, have sex, get drunk again and get married and while that seems fine with Daniel, it's clearly a huge trauma for Audrey. That's not truly romantic no matter what stripe someone is.

So, an especially jaded - but less biased by concept than actuality - interpretation of Laws Of Attraction would be that this is the most successful film about a sexually predatory man to come down the pike in a long time. After all, when they are sober, Daniel is determined, manipulative and goal-oriented. When Audrey is drunk, he achieves all of his goals. You don't get much more predatory than the whole "get a woman drunk to shag her" thing. And yet, it is Daniel who gets everything he wants in this movie while Audrey is mostly just subjected to the machinations that work against her.

The thing that people might want to cling to, then, is the end. They might cry out "Audrey really loves Daniel!" Well, that's true. All of a sudden, Audrey is used to Daniel and literally over the course of a scene decides she loves him. The problem here is completely in suspension of disbelief. I can believe opposing counsel falling in love, I can buy the whole hate hate hate hate love thing, but here it's just a hyperbole. Audrey has lived her life with certain goals that she has wanted and suddenly, in a moment of epiphany she gives them all up. Maybe I'd buy it more if she wasn't a divorce lawyer. After all, with her extensive career as a divorce lawyer, in addition to her recent experiences of apparently making bad decisions while drunk, no one would seem to know the consequences of not thinking through a decision better than her. But then she just makes the leap.

The audience does not.

All that keeps the movie bearable - not even watchable - is the acting. While Audrey and Daniel are inconsistent, poorly-written characters, Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan do the best with what is written on the page. As a result, they do their best to play along with what is written and the film works when it is establishing their characters.

Moore, especially, is completely convincing as Audrey as a strong, professional woman. She has the bearing of a woman who is in charge, has worked hard to get where she is and who has a mindset for success. Moore plays her well as a strong woman and so when Audrey has to get angry for sleeping with Daniel and later for getting drunk and marrying him, she plays that with appropriate fury and frustration. Moore's performance is so good that it makes the viewer wonder why Audrey has anything to do with Daniel outside court after the first time they have sex and better yet, why she blindly drinks with him.

Bronsan is fine as Daniel, though the character he plays is the predictable disheveled genius. In fact, Laws Of Attraction makes me wish that Hollywood would stop producing more "Odd Couple" comedies. We get it, "opposites attract!" We're not dumb, we've seen it so many times, we get it. Bronsan does his part fine oscillating between unkempt and beautifully Brosnan.

It's a shame that they give such competent performances in such an otherwise terrible movie. Save yourself the time and just watch the alshone preview trailer; everything is in it.

For other works with Parker Posey, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Boston Legal
Superman Returns
Blade: Trinity
Best In Show

3/10

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

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

The Romanticism About Relationships Dissolving: Trust The Man

The Good: Good acting, Decent subject, Moments of character
The Bad: Predictable resolutions, Opening tone beguiles development
The Basics: While decent, Trust The Man explores breaking up and infidelity with humor without making the viewer care enough about the relationships involved.


It is infrequent that I have a problem starting a review. Usually, I have one or two opening paragraphs in mind for a movie or book or c.d. before I even start talking about the item I'm reviewing. Not so with Trust The Man, the first movie I've watched today.

When Tom finds himself in something of a loveless marriage with Rebecca, an actress who has returned to the stage, he begins to feel anxiety and look elsewhere, at least for sexual satisfaction. Rebecca's brother - and Tom's best friend - Tobey is in the process of avoiding getting tied down to his girlfriend of seven years, Elaine. Elaine decides there is no future in the relationship and dumps Tobey, which is what it takes for him to realize that Elaine is important to him.

Trust The Man is essentially a romantic comedy about people who are breaking up, which is a refreshing take on the romantic comedy. The moments of humor are well timed and actually funny when they pop up. The rest of the film keeps things serious and realistic, which makes for a decent viewing experience. But before writer-director Bart Freundlich starts clapping himself on the back for a job well-done, there is a serious conceptual problem with Trust The Man.

The problem with Trust The Man can be boiled down to the idea that we never see the characters - any of the four - happy. Tom is sexually frustrated and jobless from the beginning, Rebecca is devoted to work and her children, Elaine is feeling anxiety about aging without having children and Tobey is instantly characterized as one of the most self-centered characters to ever grace the screen. Tobey is a good character to stick with on this problem; he is self-centered (he won't drive Elaine to work because he doesn't want to have to find a parking spot when he gets home), he is phobic about death, he lacks sexual inspiration and he doesn't seem to want to change anything or do anything different, include having children.

So, the problem here is that none of the characters are happy either with themselves or each other from the outset. So, what is going to bring them back together? This is especially problematic in the Tobey/Elaine relationship. Neither seems to like distinctive things about the other. Indeed, Elaine's judgment in the relationship area is particularly terrible, courting a man after Tobey for the sole reason that the man wants a child. Both couples have a sense of inertia, a sense that there is only the one for the other that is gutted by any reasonable sensibility. Elaine, a successful working woman, can't find an INTERESTING man in New York City who wants to have children?! C'mon.

While it is chic to root for fidelity and praise the virtues of marriage (and usually, I'm advocating both!), sometimes relationships just do not work out. Sometimes, people are not meant to be married to the person they find themself in a relationship with. From the opening frames of Trust The Man, I found myself rooting for break ups. Elaine's intelligence is immediately called into question by me for sticking with a guy who does not seem interested in her, who won't get off his butt to take her to work or even kiss her good morning in the morning.

That said, Trust The Man is not a complete wash, not by any stretch of the imagination. Despite the character flaws with one another, the characters are all interesting. While I was not vested in Tobey and Elaine together, Tobey was interesting as a guy who simply doesn't get it and who has a very real fear. I empathized with Elaine's desire to have a child and get married, just not with Tobey. Similarly, Tom is a very interesting character. He suffers from a disorder and watching his character's journey makes the movie watchable. The only character that seems completely dull is Rebecca, though she comes into her own near the end.

Even Rebecca, though, is well-acted. Rebecca is portrayed by Julianne Moore. Moore plays her as a straightman and she is very good at that style role. She is articulate and near the end, her ability to emote her frustration is a wrenching performance. Billy Crudup is convincing as the apathetic and fearful Tobey. Maggie Gyllenhaal illustrates that she is more than a cute-as-a-button actress. Her determination comes through expertly when Elaine is pushing Tobey away.

The surprising gem of Trust The Man comes in the form of David Duchovny, who spreads his wings well in this movie. On The X-Files (reviewed here!), Duchovny often had to be understated as Agent Mulder, here he is expressive, passionate, desirous. Duchovny is completely convincing as a man who is frustrated and who feel needs in his life that are not being met. While the viewer might not approve of his character's direction, Duchovny convinces the audience of the authenticity of the character.

Ultimately, this is a very shaky "recommend." It is entertaining, has moments of amusement, but it's not as good as it could be. For that, it would have to illustrate the stakes of the relationships, other than the characters simply being alone and Trust The Man does not do that.

For other works with Billy Crudup, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Watchmen
Mission: Impossible III
Big Fish
Almost Famous
Princess Mononoke

6/10

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

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

| | |