HBO Enters That Irksome Spot Between Brilliant And Bastardly With The Perfect Third Season Of The Newsoom!

The Good: Engaging plot development, Great acting, Good character development
The Bad: SHORT!
The Basics: In its final season, The Newsroom is short, focused, original, and perfect, which is wonderful and frustrating!


Unlike a lot of networks, HBO has the tendency not to kill shows before their time - Carnivale (reviewed here!), notwithstanding – so when it does cancel a series, it is usually because it has gone long past its prime and is no longer drawing an audience. When HBO announced that the third season of The Newsroom would be its last and it would only be getting six episodes for the season, fans like me wondered what the hell was wrong with HBO. After all, The Newsroomwas one of the network’s smartest shows and there did not seem to be any deficit of excitement for Aaron Sorkin’s latest series. Coming off the disastrous plot for the Atlantis Cable News team in the second season (reviewed here!), there seemed like plenty of interesting potential directions for the third season (and beyond) to go in.

The result of Sorkin only having six episodes to wrap up The Newsroom with is that Aaron Sorkin created one of his best seasons of television yet. The fear for Sorkin fans with some of the elements that set-up the third season – the potential buy-out of ACN smacked of the conclusion to Sports Night (reviewed here!) – was that Sorkin would once again reuse some of his previously created character arcs, plot devices and (especially) witty lines. Fortunately, for a series that was always in danger of being derivative, Sorkin and his team pulled it out with six episodes that create a tight, powerful, meaningful season of television that allows The Newsroom to go out on a high note and end before it succumbed to Sorkin’s lack of creativity.

Picking up in the wake of ACN’s expose of a fictitious story, NewsNight With Will McAvoy struggles for credibility among its cable news competitors and its dwindling audience. When the bombing of the Boston Marathon occurs, Will McAvoy and MacKenzie McHale are incredibly cautious about their sources with reporting the story – so much so that they end up discrediting a number of other reports that use false leads. While the rest of the ACN team is championing good reporting while social media gives law enforcement bad leads in the Boston Marathon case, Neal finds himself in possession of tens of thousands of documents of classified intelligence materials. Neal is handed a story about how U.S. operatives planted stories in foreign newspapers and one of those stories led to a riot in which thirty-eight people (including three Americans) were killed.

Almost immediately, Will and MacKenzie realize that Neal has committed a serious felony (encouraging his source to commit espionage) and when the Justice Department descends upon ACN, Will has Neal flee the country. As the Justice Department interrogates Will (Neal told him his source), Sloan realizes that ACN is the subject of an impending hostile takeover. Attempting to avoid a buyout by a ruthless billionaire who wants to make ACN into a network serviced by “citizen journalists” and social media, Charlie and Sloan find themselves completely at his mercy. When Lucas Pruit buys ACN and retools it, the team tries to keep things together without Will McAvoy’s leadership. Jailed for contempt for refusing to reveal Neal’s source, Will struggles to maintain his sanity while imprisoned and Mac, Don and Jim fight with Charlie to maintain the network’s integrity.

At its worst The Newsroom was always in danger of retreading where Sports Night had gone fifteen years prior. Fortunately, while the set-up for the final season of The Newsroom was identical to the final arc of Sports Night, the third season of The Newsroom takes the series in a different direction. Instead of being a savior for the beloved show, Lucas Pruit becomes an antagonist who menaces everything the protagonists for the series have built. The difference makes all the difference: it allows The Newsroom to go out on a completely different note than Sports Night and it allows Aaron Sorkin to finish the show with a sense of originality that his prior two works have lacked.

The third season of The Newsroom is notable, as well, for telling some stories that are not actual news story, sucking it out of the real world and into the fictional world of The West Wing (reviewed here!). That makes it problematic as it blends fictional television universes (Equatorial Kundu, which is at the heart of the story that captivates Neal and Will, is a construct of The West Wing) and the real world (Edward Snowden is on monitors in Charlie’s office and the Boston Marathon bombing coverage is relayed in a fashion identical to reality). While this might seem like a real conundrum only for fans of Sorkin’s works (how to reconcile a world where after Bartlet and Santos, Bush and Obama came to power), it guts the authority of The Newsroom for fans of this show alone as well. After all, The Newsroom has been very rooted in speaking truth to power as we know it in the U.S. right now. A show that called out the Tea Party and explored genocide in Africa that then cannot come up with a real story to use to tell the whole journalist integrity/espionage story seems troubling.

Regardless, The Newsroom Season Three manages to be entirely engaging and even pull out some real surprises. “Oh Shenandoah,” especially, is unlike anything else on any other Aaron Sorkin production. The result is a pleasantly surprising season of television that is almost impossible not to binge watch into a single sitting!

For those unfamiliar with it by this point, The Newsroom is dominated by distinctive characters. In the third and final season, the essential characters are:

Will McAvoy – The lead anchor of ACN’s flagship program, NewsNight, he is engaged to MacKenzie. Their marriage plans soon go awry when McAvoy buys Neal the computer he needs to get his informant to trust him. McAvoy stands by his ethical standards to fight the government cover-up in Kundu, going to jail rather than naming Neal’s source. His time in prison for protecting his source is a transformative one for him,

MacKenzie McHale – Executive Producer of NewsNight, she loves Will and works to protect his legacy while he is in prison. She realizes very early on how much trouble Neal and Will are in, thanks in part to a friend in the intelligence community with whom she confides. While trying to fend off the hostile takeover of Atlantis Cable News, she actually meets their source face to face. Her wedding plans are very suddenly altered, which leads her to make an important, abrupt, decision,

Jim Harper –After getting his girlfriend a job at ACN, he is shocked when she makes an ill-timed Tweet and he is forced to take her to Charlie to be fired. They have a falling out over the type of job she gets afterward, where he worries that she might be wooed by ACN’s enemies, and that sets him and Maggie up for a relationship. He gets little done as Producer at ACN, though he and Maggie attempt to get an interview with Edward Snowden as he leaves Russia,

Maggie Jordan – Having recovered from the incident in Africa, she returns to a more traditional look and refocuses on her health and professional development. She overhears a potentially big story from an EPA source while on a train and she decides not to take the salacious story in exchange for reporting the more substantive one. She starts dating another man she met on the train and they have tension based on Maggie’s attraction to Jim,

Don Keefer – He starts dating Sloan, though the two struggle to hide that fact from a member of Human Resources. He is given the unenviable task of vetting a young woman with a problematic website for the new ACN, which leads him to his ultimate conflict with Charlie,

Sloan Sabbith – Giddy over her new terminal that seems to give her inside financial information, she is the one who figures out that Reese and his mother are about to lose ACN. She starts dating Don and fails his tests when he realizes that she is very much like him in relationships,

Neal Sampat – He is eager to get respect and legitimacy from his coworkers and, in the process, eagerly gives the ACN encryption key to a source who requests it. To prove to himself and the others that the source is legitimate, he informs the source how to transfer the classified documents from the U.S. internal sites to him. After inadvertently inciting espionage, he goes on the run while the rest of the team fights for his rights and freedoms back in New York,

and Charlie Skinner – The president of ACN, he goes toe to toe with Lansing’s other children, who will inherit and buy enough of the company’s stock to completely own the company. Fearful of the direction they might take it, he tries to suck up to them and then tries to find a buyer who has as much integrity as Reese and his mother. Under Pruit’s ownership of ACN, he is truly miserable and finds himself fighting against his own goals and agendas.

In its third season, everyone on The Newsroom know their parts and how to play them expertly. This is a flawlessly-delivered season of television and the few guest stars for the season, like Kat Dennings and B.J. Novak, figure out how to play perfectly within the seasoned cast who know their characters backwards and forwards. Jeff Daniels uses the last few moments of the show to infuse Will McAvoy with his own interest and talent (singing) and he is such a professional that he makes it seem organically like a trait of McAvoy instead of Daniels. That is a talent that few actors possess!

All of that adds up to an engaging season that packs a lot into six episodes and makes one figure that HBO is brilliant and figured out how to get something new out of Aaron Sorkin . . . even as it infuriates viewers with how the show is already done!

For other works from the 2014 – 2015 television season, please check out my reviews of:
House Of Cards - Season 2
Doctor Who - Season 8
True Blood - Season 7
”Now Is Not The End” - Agent Carter
”Aftershocks” - Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D.

10/10

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

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

The Graphic After-School Special Without The Spark: To Write Love On Her Arms

The Good: Good performances, Moments of direction
The Bad: Lack of character spark, Oppressive tone, Somewhat predictable plot arc
The Basics: To Write Love On Her Arms is a glorified after-school special with an impressive cast, which fails to connect because it is so unflappably generic.


In recent years, it seems like stories of subjects that were traditionally the domain of after school television movies – alcoholism, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. – that have a Very Special Message have managed to make the transition from the small screen to the big screen. While there are a few such stories that endure and make for great films, more often than not, they have trouble translating to major motion picture. Without knowing anything about To Write Love On Her Arms beforehand, I was drawn to the film simply by Kat Dennings’s starring role in the film; but the biopic drama is one of the more problematically-rendered big-screen films about battling addiction. As much as I might have wanted To Write Love On Her Arms to be an amazing experience I could eagerly recommend to Kat Dennings fans and moviegoers in general, the film transitions from imaginative and unsettling to heavyhanded, predictable and strangely dull.

To Write Love On Her Arms is the story of Renee Yohe, who is a real person; it is worth noting right at the outset that I know nothing of the actual person upon whom To Write Love On Her Arms is based. This is strictly a review of the film To Write Love On Her Arms. Issues with character and plot all are centered strictly upon the film versions of these characters and one has to assume some of the events (or at least names) are fictionalized to protect those who would not give clearance for their parts in the story to be presented on screen. So, before hashing out the plot, the fundamental problems with To Write Love On Her Arms are the lack of originality and a murky initiating incident.

Renee Yohe is an outsider at her high school where she, Dylan and Jessie bond and pretty much stand alone apart from the rest of their classmates. Renee is close with her mother and has an imagination that is intense. But in high school, she abruptly begins cutting herself, getting into drugs and alcohol and hanging off the arms of many different boys and men. After doing coke at a party, she is pulled into a back room and raped and after cutting pretty heavily, she calls upon Dylan and Jessie to help her out. Dylan takes his boss’s car to rescue Renee and together they head back to try to get Renee into rehab. Dylan’s boss, McKenna, is an ex-addict who is in recovery and is now a manager of musical groups. When rehab will not take Renee in, because she has not been sober and has not been cut-free for five days, McKenna takes Renee in to get her sober.

At McKenna’s house, Renee starts to get clean and she re-bonds with Dylan and Jessie. She also meets Jamie Tworkowski, who becomes intrigued by her story. Despite setbacks like going to a concert which leads Renee to cut again (largely because Jessie leaps to the conclusion that she used while separated from them), Renee manages to get clean. Six months after she first got admitted to rehab, Jamie has built an online community around Renee’s story and trying to help those who suffer from similar addictions. Out of the shelter of rehab, Renee finds herself suddenly a celebrity of sorts thanks to Jamie’s site and charity, To Write Love On Her Arms. She is overwhelmed, but struggles with her sobriety and her desire to help others who suffer from issues similar to herself.

Immediately, one of the most serious issues with To Write Love On Her Arms is the lack of a clear, strong, initiating incident to make the protagonist one with whom audiences can empathize. Yes, writers Kate King Lynch and Nathan Frankowski get around to it, but given that the first twenty minutes of To Write Love On Her Arms feature Renee undergoing dramatic physical changes, cutting, obvious drug addiction and a rape, the fairly simple exposition that comes at the halfway point is incredibly unsatisfying. But for almost half the film, the best explanation viewers have for the self-degradation of the protagonist is simply a vague sense of depression and the death of Jessie’s mother affecting her at a young age. Given how death of a friend’s family member is hardly considered a traumatic event, this is an unsatisfying motivation from a narrative perspective.

To Write Love On Her Arms starts off well-enough and strong enough. Director Nathan Franowski uses visual stylings for the young, imaginative, version of Renee that are instantly reminiscent of Across The Universe (reviewed here!). But the film quickly loses its magic and the harsh reality of the world is mirrored in the direction; To Write Love On Her Arms becomes a stark, dark, dank film that is as formulaic as any afterschool special. To Write Love On Her Arms suffers because its protagonist might be famous and a celebrity within the sobriety social circle in Florida and on the internet, but her story is incredibly typical and the lack of originality makes for a fairly unsatisfying film. To Write Love On Her Arms is just a more visually-graphic, modernized The Lost Weekend (reviewed here!).

What To Write Love On Her Arms has is a valuable message and pretty wonderful acting. Despite seeming like a PSA for the charity To Write Love On Her Arms, the acting is of a decent caliber. Actress Kat Dennings who made the transition effectively from indie movie star to mainstream celebrity with Two Broke Girls (season one is reviewed here!) is amazing as Renee Yohe. Dennings does snarky wonderfully, but the role of Yohe does not allow her any of her trademark sass. Instead, she is pale, listless and difficult-to-watch as the depressed, addicted, deeply-pained protagonist. This is new cinematic territory for Dennings and she plays the role with amazing depth and a disturbing proficiency.

Equally good are the supporting cast, at least for what they are allowed to do. Chad Michael Murray is easy to write off for those of us who only knew him from the first season of Gilmore Girls (reviewed here!) or his teenager-marketed soap opera One Tree Hill, but in To Write Love On Her Arms he is good. While his part of Jamie is pretty simple (he basically facilitates the story without giving any significant backstory himself), Murray plays it well and he plays off Rupert Friend’s McKenna in a way that makes it completely credible that the two characters are old friends. Rupert Friend is good as McKenna, though he telegraphs his performance to make his character’s plot-focused relapse instantaneously predictable.

One of the pleasant surprises on the performance front is Mark Saul. Saul performs a cover of the Coldplay song “The Scientist” and his voice is wonderful. Saul makes Dylan a decent supporting character and with Juliana Harkavy, the pair support Dennings’s Renee Yohee enough to make the character have a believable support network.

But To Write Love On Her Arms is otherwise unremarkable. The direction starts interesting and fades ridiculously fast; the characters and plot are predictable and generic. The result is a movie with good performances that is generally unwatchable.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
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
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Birdman

3.5/10

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.
| | |

The Rare Sequel Better Than The Original: How Thor: The Dark World Became THE Superhero Movie Of 2013!

The Good: Special effects, Performances, Moments of characters.
The Bad: Malekith comes across as monolithic, Romance plot is underdeveloped.
The Basics: Thor: The Dark World surpasses Thor as an engaging journey with enough character and deeper themes to remain compelling throughout.


Sequels, admittedly, have a tough time of it, especially the longer a franchise goes on. In a year where Marvel is trying to flesh out its universe with the television show Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and surpass the spectacle of The Avengers (reviewed here!) with Iron Man 3 (reviewed here!), the second Marvel blockbuster attempt for the year hits theaters at a time when it is hard not to be pre-disappointed. With Ender’s Game promising to blow the roof off of special-effects driven action movies only a week before Thor: The Dark World hits screens, Marvel had to sell a compelling story in order to truly land the Thor sequel as a success.

Fortunately, it does (for the most part).

I was not a huge fan of Thor (reviewed here!), though I will openly admit that it has aged better in hindsight than many of the Marvel Universe films, so if anything my expectations were lowered for Thor: The Dark World. But Thor: The Dark World has what Thor lacked: an appreciation for the unique setting of Thor within the Marvel Universe and a villain who was more than just an empty suit. Despite being somewhat underdeveloped and underused, Thor: The Dark World includes a villain who raises the stakes admirably in a way that Iron Man 3 was not able to do credibly. If the stakes in The Avengers were New York City and Earth, Thor: The Dark World ratchets the potential catastrophe up in a way that it seems hard for Guardians Of The Galaxy to follow: the nine realms of the universe are all poised to fall in Thor: The Dark World!

Having returned to the magical realm of Asgard, with Loki as his prisoner, Thor is once more bound by family and mystical barriers that keep him away from Earth and physicist Jane Foster. While Thor adapts to life back on Asgard by bringing peace to all the realms, on Earth, Jane is trying to get on with her life. When Darcy pops back up with information on mysterious readings in the atmosphere, Jane is enticed and they find a gravitational anomaly in an abandoned warehouse. There, Jane is teleported to the Dark World where she touches the Aether. The Aether possesses her and she is returned to Earth, which draws Thor back to Earth. Thor takes Jane back to Asgard to try to save her life from the Aether. Soon after, the Dark Elf Malekith leads an attack on Asgard. As the remaining enemy of the Asgardians – the Frost Giants were not the only ones! – the Dark Elves make an attack of Thor’s homeland that illustrates the power their leader, Malekith can bring to bear, Thor and his friends find themselves in a struggle that threatens all nine realms. To that end, Thor breaks Loki out of his Asgard prison.

After reconciling for their time apart, Thor, Loki and Jane continue their work and relationship together. Malekith’s plan soon becomes painfully clear; a celestial event, the Convergence is soon to occur and that will allow Malekith to lay waste to all nine realms at once. To stop Malekith and the creatures he employs and sets free through the rifts caused by the Convergence. Journeying to the Dark World, Thor, Loki, and Jane try to lure Malekith away from Asgard and Earth, but when Malekith takes the Aether for his own, at a tragic cost, Earth becomes the focal point for Malekith's vengeance and Thor must save the world again.

Given that Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. just began (and was already given a full-season order) and there are plenty more Marvel film sequels with release dates announced, the fate of Malekith’s plan is pretty well telegraphed. Whenever I look at a villain, especially one who wants to either rule the world (which always seems much more of a hassle than it is worth) or destroy the world/existence, the key question for credibility is “why?” Malekith is given a glossed-over revenge story that takes a back seat to the Loki/Thor buddy action movie that Thor: The Dark World turns into. In fact, even more than the hints of a love story – Marvel apparently does not want to tread anywhere near a Twilight-esque love story that would actually develop genuine emotions between their superheroes and a love interest - Thor: The Dark World cries out for a Director’s Cut that might restore scenes to the film (not just as deleted scenes on the inevitable Blu-Ray, but actually integrated as a true director’s cut) that make Malekith seem more well-rounded and truly compelling instead of clinging to an old wound with a perverse sense of overreaction for his revenge.

One of the fundamental problems with Thor was that the romantic subplot between Thor and Jane Foster was largely under-developed. The basis of Jane’s relationship with Thor was, largely, that he was The Other, the proof she rationally needed to believe in the fantastic. As anyone who has ever been in a romantic relationship knows, that wears off. In fact, it is a poor excuse for starting a relationship (even Darcy’s obsession with Thor’s physique has more long-term lasting power than the sense of wonder one might have to explore a finite space). To that end, Thor: The Dark World does what it absolutely has to in order to keep the relationship between Thor and Jane plausible, if not sustainable: Thor shows Jane Asgard and that rekindles what little they (substantively) had between them before Jane becomes a plot point to motivate Thor. Jane Foster rapidly becomes as ineffectual as Natalie Portman’s Padme Amidala (though, to be fair to Portman, the scenes in Revenge Of The Sith that made Amidala into a compelling leader were cut from the film! Whether such scenes for Thor: The Dark World exist is unclear) and Jane becomes an unfortunate damsel in distress character that Portman seems bored with portraying.

Christopher Eccleston, who is usually magnificent in good as Malekith, but the downgrade in my esteem for him comes not from anything he does, but from how Malekith is written and presented on screen. Eccleston presents great vocal emotional range, which is pretty much all he can do behind the make-up and CG effects for Malekith. Only a hint of his true acting range is presented in a single scene where he is able to infuse genuine emotion behind his eyes and hint at the depths of Malekith’s loss and anger.

With most of the main cast either appearing in seriously small roles amounting to little more than cameos (Kat Dennings, for example, appears as Darcy for a decent chunk delivering her lines exactly as one would expect from the Two Broke Girls star), the brunt of Thor: The Dark World falls on the performances of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Hiddleston is able to play Loki with more depth than in The Avengers where Loki was a facilitator and tool for much of the film, albeit with some wonderful lines. In Thor: The Dark World, Loki is a beaten man (demigod) who is rebuilding his presence and Hiddleston makes the process as convincing as possible without ever having the sense that Loki is either lost entirely or becoming confident too soon after his imprisonment. It’s a tough balance, but Hiddleston nails it.

There is a tough balance for Chris Hemsworth to play as well. Thor is a fantastic character and having such a larger-than-life godlike character, especially in moments in our real world, can come across as cheesy or invincible in a way that obstacles he faces are ridiculous. Hemsworth finds a way – usually with his eyes and smile – to deliver lines that allow him to play Thor as a credible and realized character who is not taking himself entirely too seriously. That is a tightrope that Hemsworth navigates well.

Director Alan Taylor balances the character moments and quips between Thor and Loki fairly well with the dramatic fantasy setting of Asgard and the other realms. While the final chase through the nine realms between Thor and Malekith once again illustrates how directors today try to equate special effects with speed (the settings are hardly as developed as Asgard or Earth and the way they are bounced between is sometimes more frustrating than satisfying), what is shown is immaculate.

Ultimately, Thor: The Dark World has the character elements needed to rival Ender’s Game to keep the science fiction piece from stealing a second weekend at the top of the box office and to leave viewers glad Marvel has once again overcome expectations.
For other works with Christopher Eccleston, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Unfinished Song
Amelia
G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra
Heroes - Season 1
28 Days Later . . .
Elizabeth

7.5/10

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

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

Clever And Satirical, Daydream Nation Is A Wonderful Indie Film!

The Good: Decent writing, Good direction, Engaging story, Interesting characters, Good mood
The Bad: No superlative acting
The Basics: Daydream Nation is a memorable, quirky drama film that follows a likable young protagonist through the most eventful year of her life.


Not since Dreamland (reviewed here!) have I seen an indie film set in a small, seemingly inconsequential place that was preoccupied with mood to such an extent that it dominates the movie and makes the setting seem like a microcosm of the world. So, I have been waiting for Daydream Nation (or a film like it) for years. When I checked out Daydream Nation, I knew nothing about it. Ultimately, the lone reason I actually began the film was the presence of Kat Dennings in the movie; I’m a fan and I was eager to see if this film expanded her range at all.

It did, though the part she plays is essentially a female version of Charlie Bartlett, without his sense of extroversion. While I am not so big on voiceovers, Dennings immediately gets the viewer into Daydream Nation by providing the background exposition that establishes her character, Caroline, in the small town in which she finds herself. In Daydream Nation, Caroline experiences the most eventful year of her life.

Set in a small town during the year of an unending tire fire and the reign of a serial killer, Caroline Wexler finds herself as a new student for her Senior year of high school. Utterly bored by the boys her age, she sets out to seduce her teacher, Barry Anderson. After only a few days of working on him, Caroline succeeds in bedding Barry and the two start a relationship. Her classmate, Thurston - who developed a crush on her at a party they both went to immediately before getting into an accident in which the driver, his friend, died – begins to hit on Caroline and she rejects him in a straightforward, if cruel, way. Avoiding the druggies her age, the taunts of classmates like Jenny, and the fear that comes from living in a small town under siege by a serial killer taking out people her age, Caroline starts to get jealous of Barry’s relationship with another teacher at her school.

When Caroline reads Barry’s manuscript, she objects to the characterization of the character based upon her. In breaking up with him, she sets off a chain of events that will change everything for Barry, Thurston, and herself!

Daydream Nationseems, when describing it, like it could be a particularly lame love triangle story, but it manages to be quite a bit more than that. Like Magnolia (reviewed here!), without the oppressive mood and the multitude of characters, tells a number of stories within the main narrative. Divergences like the Legend Of Laura Lee and The Party, within Daydream Nation smartly keep the pace moving rapidly, without losing the sense that this is a weird place Caroline lives. Moreover, for a character who does a number of pretty terrible things (on a humanist level) to Thurston and, from a societal standpoint, to Barry, Caroline becomes an engaging narrator that the viewer wants to empathize with.

Caroline is a young woman in the process of becoming and that is what makes her feel much more universal than the setting or the extreme things she does. Caroline loathes the kids her age, seeing them for the stupid, destructive behaviors that she wants no part of and that makes it easy even for adults to like her. Caroline has experienced loss – her mother – and that gives her a credible bonding point with Thurston.

Thurston, for his part, makes for a reasonably traumatized child and he is likable in that his healing journey takes real time. Were it not for the unfortunate incest comment made early in the film, the hug his mother gives him would not seem creepy, but the extent of Thurston’s trauma is limited in the film to the abandonment by his father, witnessing his best friend die horribly, and ejaculating with realistic speed his first time with Caroline. Thurston, more than his friends who use absolutely anything in the house to get high with, is likable in that he seems to want more – especially in his earnest quest for Caroline’s love.

The setting goes a long way to establishing and drawing out the mood. The town the film is set in is boring and the high school students are predictably young and moronic. Michael Goldbach, who wrote and directed Daydream Nation is smart enough to make Barry smart enough to understand exactly what is going on with Caroline’s seduction of him. That adds realism and intelligence to a script that could have seem unnaturally quirky.

But for people looking for a smart, introverted drama, Daydream Nation is satisfying, both on the entertainment front and having something larger to say.

For other works with Kat Dennings, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Two Broke Girls - Season 1
Thor
Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist
Charlie Bartlett
The 40 Year Old Virgin

7/10

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

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

Judd Apatow, What Were You Thinking?!

The Good: Amusing concept, Acting
The Bad: Terrible execution of concept, not funny, most of the characters
The Basics: Not terribly funny or even entertaining, The 40 Year Old Virgin gives some decent actors work, though it's not worth it for them or us.


Judd Apatow, creator of Freaks And Geeks (a worthy show, reviewed here!) was the key selling point for me to sit and watch The 40 Year Old Virgin. Apatow created a funny, endearing and clever show that I loved. That got him a lot of points in my book. He pretty much used all of them up with The 40 Year Old Virgin. Under the heading that "life is too short for softcore," I viewed the Unrated version of the DVD for my review and while I can see how the regular release might have been "R," there's nothing here in the unrated edition that seemed like an 18 year old could not handle.

Andy Stitzer is an introverted 40 year-old who has never had sex and works at a Circuit City-type store with his three much more experienced friends. One day, he meets Trish a woman who works across the street and instantly shows interest in him. Andy's friends David, Jay and Cal begin to prepare Andy for a relationship under the notion that if he wants the relationship to truly work, he has to go through some women as practice so his first sexual experience isn't terrible.

The 40 Year Old Virgin suffers not so much in concept, but in execution. I can see how the idea of a 40 year-old virgin could be funny. A guy who has never had sex and wants to start faces any number of difficulties that could be funny. The problem is that The 40 Year Old Virgin isn't terribly funny and the moments that are are almost completely mortgaged by the beastly parts that aren't funny.

So, for example, there are large portions of dialogue that have nothing to do with the rest of the movie that are more mortifying than related to the story. The peak of these is a confrontation between Jay, Andy's token black friend, and a black customer in the store. The two fight and the point of the episode is too opaque to describe in context.

Similarly, the characters are mostly idiotic and stereotypically male. Jay exhibits the prejudicial misogyny and promiscuity associated with black men and David and Cal are equally emotionally shallow for the bulk of the movie (especially Cal). The men are opportunistic, predatory and treat sex as a means to an end for their own personal release. It means nothing to them beyond their own satisfaction.

And the women in The 40 Year Old Virgin are only slightly less stereotypical, though often no better portrayed. Trish is angry and only happy with Andy when she is trying to change him, the rest of the women are drunk idiots who are ready to put out with any man who shows them any attention. Jay's girlfriend is ignorant of his extra-relationship activities and oblivious to his misogyny.

All around, The 40 Year Old Virgin is populated with characters who are entirely unintelligent and emotionally disconnected, unlike characters in Apatow's other works. The movie was co-written by Judd Apatow and lead actor Steve Carell, though I would think both would want to distance themselves from this work. For two people used to being funny, it's amazing they created something so unredeemably stupid.

The best character in this movie is Trish's teenage daughter, who is looking to become sexually active herself. While she plays the stereotype of the indifferent teenager with a heart of gold, the character is a welcome change from the imperceptive morons embodied by the other characters.

The only thing that makes The 40 Year Old Virgin even bearable beyond the trailer is the acting. Outside the witless dance number at the climax of the movie, the actors remain in character and do a good job of convincing the viewer of their character's narrow views of the world. It's always nice to see Seth Rogen getting work and his portrayal of Cal is amusing throughout. Rogen is able to play the straightman and deadpan well.

Catherine Keener does well as Trish. Keener plays a believable small business owner and mother who is struggling to meet decent guys. Keener has a quiet sadness to her that she allows to come through in some of the movie's softer scenes.

It is Steve Carell that the movie ought to rest on, but the script and airtime of the other characters drags even his performance down. Carell plays Andy with humor that never breaks from the character. Carell plays the nervous geek quite well and as Andy he creates something of an archetype. The problem comes in the hair removal scene. As he has a waxing, he begins to swear up a storm and Carell delivers his lines extraordinarily well and with a fury that is formidable. The problem is where Andy delivers his anger. Carell plays the anger perfectly, but because the anger is directed at the worker and not his friends, the character is revealed to be as base as his comrades.

What ultimately knocked this further for me was the constant, juvenile exhortation of "gay" as a pejorative. Cal and David have a whole scene - extended on the Unrated version - of why the other is gay and it's just a collection of stupid, lame and/or hateful statements that only reinforces the meanest concepts in the minds of the people this movie is most likely to appeal to.

For other works with Kat Dennings, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Two Broke Girls - Season 1
Thor
Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist
Charlie Bartlett

3/10

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

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

Yes, I Watch Two Broke Girls, But Try As I Might, I Can’t Recommend Season 1!

The Good: Some very funny lines, Good cast
The Bad: Very predictable plots, Terrible acting, Very forced humor.
The Basics: While I enjoyed the first season of Two Broke Girls, objectively it falls to the lower spectrum of average comedies on television today.


Some people have a notion of a “guilty pleasure.” I no longer do. Instead of “guilty pleasures,” I simply acknowledge the difference between things I like on an emotional level and works that are actually qualitatively good. So, when I both admit to watching Two Broke Girls whenever it comes on and to not recommending the DVD boxed set of Two Broke Girls, there is actually startlingly little contradiction. I enjoy Two Broke Girls, but I know that it is not good.

Before there comes a pile-on of nasty comments, let’s backtrack. Two Broke Girls is very funny. The show is usually very well-written for one-liners and zingers. But, the acting is terrible and the humor is telegraphed and until the second half of the season when Sophie entered the mix, something was missing. Why did I so enthusiastically watch the first season of Two Broke Girls? Quite simply, I’m a fan of the works of Kat Dennings. She’s smart and funny and yeah, there’s a little crush there on my part. But in Two Broke Girls, the directors do not hold her to any sense of standards; they don’t push her toward the greatness she has exhibited in other works. How do I know? In Charlie Bartlett and Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist, Kat Dennings doesn’t crack up on screen at her own wit. In Two Broke Girls, she does with unfortunate consistency. The only member of the cast less able to keep a poker face on screen is Dennings’ costar, Beth Behrs.

I wish I could find a way to blame Whitney Cummings. Cummings is a comedian who seems to be very vogue all of a sudden. She is one of the two co-creators of Two Broke Girls and a terrible actress in her own right, laughing through much of her own material on her own sitcom, Whitney. In fact, for me, the two biggest, least pleasant, surprises of the 2011-12 television season were that Whitney mysteriously got renewed for a second season and that she was a co-creator of Two Broke Girls. I can’t complain too much; it is virtually assured that as soon as Whitney gets shitcanned, Cummings will appear on Two Broke Girls as Max’s mother.

Regardless of her similar acting style (or failure to act and simply be amused by her own creations) and her influence in Two Broke Girls, Whitney Cummings is not to blame for the show’s problems. CBS, who airs Two Broke Girls enjoys reinforcing conventions, as opposed to defying them. So, Two Broke Girls exists as a string of back-and-forth lines of dialogue that stop for a telegraphed laugh track to tell viewers that what they just heard was funny. Some of it is, but Two Broke Girls forces the humor far too much, making it feel like the show is trying way too hard to amuse its audience (who is pretty much predisposed toward comedy anyway).

Two Broke Girls is, as the title suggests, the story of two young women who represent the working poor. Max works at a crappy diner in New York City and takes care of babies for an ultra-rich woman (at least until a mid-season course correction for the show). Caroline Channing is a down-on-her-luck heiress who suddenly finds herself cut off in the world when her father’s massive white collar crimes leave the family out on the street. Determined to survive in the City, she gets a job at Han’s diner with Max and she moves in with Max as well. The arrangement takes on positive spin for both when Caroline begins to apply her expertise in business to Max’s small-time cupcake-making business.

Over the course of the first season, Max and Caroline try desperately to save up the money needed to truly grow their cupcake business. However, they are frequently hampered by being forced to spend money on things like a new stove, artwork whose destruction might bring about a catharsis, a Murphy bed, and an ice cream cake. The comedy frequently comes from zippy, sarcastic one liners from Max that acknowledge her terrible childhood, promiscuity or poverty or poke fun at Caroline’s abrupt change in social status and the differences between being rich and poor.

The season has a number of sitcom standards. The two young women are trying to build their own business, but in the process, they are navigating relationships in New York City. Max flirts with a very cool artist and Caroline largely remains in a state of forced chastity. So, it is unsurprising when – after a few months of being poor – Caroline starts looking for a one-night stand. Pretty standard plots come when the pair breaks into Caroline’s father’s townhouse for a few hours, Caroline must sell some designer rings, and the pair has a dramatic misunderstanding over what the new neighbor upstairs does for a living.

The essential characters in the first season of Two Broke Girls are:

Max Black – A young woman who has no idea who her father is and whose mother was a crazy alcoholic, she is on her own getting by as best she can. She makes cupcakes from a mix and sells them as a premium product at Han’s diner where she works as a waitress. Despite showing compassion toward Caroline and the twins of a New York socialite, she is deeply sarcastic and jaded. Very quick with a sarcastic remark,

Caroline Channing – The daughter of a now-imprisoned billionaire, she is on her own in the real world for the first time in her life. Cut off from all she knew, she learns how to waitress and coupon from Max, while teaching Max to enjoy sushi and the finer things in life. She comes with a horse, Chestnut, who she is forced to give up over the winter. She takes over running the business end of the cupcake business, including getting her and Max enrolled in classes at a local bakery to learn how to make the cupcakes nicer looking,

Earl – The old host of the Williamsburg Diner, he used to be a jazz musician. He and Max are pals. He has a heart attack, which makes Max realize just how important he is to her,

Oleg – The cook at the diner, he is obsessed with sex and spends each interaction with Max and Caroline making a crass remark. When he meets Sophie, he becomes determined to hook up with her and, despite being from very different ends of the social spectrum, he succeeds,

Sophie – Max and Caroline’s new upstairs neighbor, she runs a cleaning service. She is impressed with Max’s work ethic and Caroline’s sense of style. Despite being ashamed of herself, she continues to hook up with Oleg. She has a cottage she is having built in Europe,

And Han – the short proprietor of the Williamsburg Diner, he tries desperately to be hip and cool, and usually fails horribly. He ignites a war with the women of the area when he dramatically raises the price of tampons sold in the lady’s room at the diner.

While the show focuses heavily on Dennings’ Max and Behr’s Channing, they are well-supported by Jonathan Kite, Jennifer Coolidge, Matthew Moy, and Garrett Morris. Kite is relegated to the lowest form of sidekick until the appearance of Coolidge on the staff. As Oleg, Kite is mostly responsible for seeming smarmy. Moy, similarly, is given the role of appearing constantly uncool and he plays that well. Garrett Morris – who it’s always nice to see getting work – does a decent job as Earl, though he is given astonishingly little to do, but appear in the background and make the occasional one-liner. Jennifer Coolidge, then, explodes into the series as Sophie and her appearance brings a spark that had been missing. Far more active than the male cast members, Coolidge brings a zany quality to Sophie that feels fresh and fun.

Even so, it’s impossible to recommend a season that is largely contrived and features talented actors constantly failing to act. Perhaps the second season will be more disciplined and worth adding to the permanent collection, instead of just watching, enjoying, and forgetting about.

For other situational comedies, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Happy Endings - Season 2
The Big Bang Theory - Season 4
30 Rock - Season 4

4.5/10

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

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

| | |

Ultimately Average, Charlie Bartlett Stumbles In The Middle.

The Good: Interesting characters, Decent acting
The Bad: Predictable plot/character elements, Story unravels in the middle
The Basics: Smart but rather unfortunately plotted in the middle, Charlie Bartlett is good, but not truly great.


Did you ever watch a gymnastics or ice skating event on television (or in person) and begin the experience of watching one athlete perform completely entranced and rooting for them, only to watch as their routine fell apart in the middle? And then, if you're like me, you might stick it out, unsure if you're rooting for the performer to fail utterly or pull it out and see how the judges finally rate the overall. In the case of Charlie Bartlett, the first film to my knowledge that I have seen by writer Gustin Nash and director Jon Poll initially impressed me, despite having so many similarities to other coming-of-age dramedies of late, most notably Across The Universe (reviewed here!).

Sadly, as I sit contemplating Charlie Bartlett, my overwhelming sensation is one of mild to moderate disappointment. This is not to say that I did not enjoy the film - largely, I did - but rather for the beginning the movie had and the complexity it seemed to have in terms of character depth and concept, when the movie unraveled, it never quite recovered from that.

Charlie Bartlett is a young man in high school who has been kicked out of virtually every private school in Connecticut. He is desperate to be popular, but is clearly an outsider, starting his first day in public school wearing a suit and tie. Mugged by the local punk, Murphy, and ogled by the principal's daughter, Susan, Charlie looks to both fit in and change the student body.

Allying with the thug who beat him up by having the punk sell off his Ritalin to fellow students, Charlie Bartlett soon becomes the de facto psychiatrist for his fellow students. Soon, though, Principal Gardner notices and he notices how troublemaker Charlie is sniffing around his daughter. When the superintendent compels Gardner to put up video cameras in the Senior lounge, the students rebel and look to Charlie to lead them.

First, I'm shocked that this movie is rated R. I've never been much of a fan of the MPAA, but how director Jon Poll sat and took an "R" for this movie baffles me. There is nothing so explicit as to be bothersome to audiences younger than eighteen, but that could just be the liberal in me talking.

Second, Charlie Bartlett starts out wonderfully. This was a film I picked up because I saw previews before another DVD I was watching, so the trailers were fairly effective. But in its execution, the film slowly goes away from its original quirky brilliance and into somewhere nowhere near as inventive or even interesting. In its opening sequences, Charlie Bartlett is layered and subtle, its characterizations are interesting, even the cliche ones.

So, for example, the punk is obvious - whatwith his mohawk - but how quickly he and Charlie develop a business partnership makes the viewer forget the swirly he gives Charlie. Similarly, from her first appearance, Susan Gardner is obviously Charlie's love interest at the public school and yet there is something fiercely unique in Susan. While she is typically teenager-ish to her father, with Charlie, she is his esoteric equal, calling him by his full name at each of their meetings.

Moreover, Charlie Bartlett is clearly an outsider's fantasy, from the opening sequence where Charlie envisions himself as a sort of rock star before his class. Even more clever is how he uses the punk's videos of all of the people he has beaten up - including Charlie - to create a DVD to sell to help Murphy make restitution to his victims.

Actually, that's an excellent place to explore where the film begins to diverge from its interesting and unique course into a somewhat banal "kids fight the powers" story. One of Murphy's victims, Kip, is clearly in need of serious psychological help. Charlie, who is painted as being a reluctant outsider listens to Kip and he seems to empathize with Kip quite a bit. Yet, when it comes to Murphy giving Kip money from the DVD sales, Charlie isn't as insistent as one might expect and Kip only gets about $20 from Murphy. But when Charlie fails to follow-through with Kip and actually befriend him better, the movie takes a right turn into Sucksville and it picks up the pace.

It is at this point that the student body's tensions over the cameras reaches a boil and for some reason Charlie becomes an idiot. Caught by Principal Gardner for selling the DVDs, Charlie fails to see that he has done anything wrong. I can dig that; I don't think he did anything wrong either. The problem is, Charlie doesn't speak up to explain what it was he was doing. For such a vocal young man, that he allows himself to be suspended for three days rather than saying "I was raising money for all of the kids Murphy beat up" is baffling. It defies the logic of a young man who will call that same adult on his alcoholism.

Similarly, Charlie's friendship seems to have no real effect on Susan. Susan is able to talk to Charlie unlike how she feels she cannot talk with her father. This is established early on and unfortunately, this does not change. Susan decides to be secretive as opposed to honest, which her relationship with Charlie seems to have made her. So, here is a high school girl who has no problem with the boy who just lost his virginity to her shouting it out to pretty much the entire student body, but she won't tell her father that she has picked up some nicotine gum so she can quit smoking . . . It seems unnecessarily juvenile in its construction to me.

That said, this film is largely better than the majority of teen coming-of-age movies out there. It has genuine character in its protagonist and some truly impressive performances throughout. Hope Davis is definitely under credited as Charlie's mother. She plays the relationship perfectly, eyeing Charlie more like a husband than a son, which suits her character's weird lack of boundaries. And Kat Dennings impressed me with her ability to play a mature young woman. She is clearly not simply trading on her Hollywood good looks (which she has in a very striking and understated way) to get roles. She is articulate and she holds her own in scenes with both Robert Downey Jr. and Anton Yelchin.

Robert Downey Jr. bears the brunt of my acting gripe with Charlie Bartlett. Downey is a fabulous actor, but here he is either typecast (Principal Gardner is an alcoholic) or simply used because of his prior roles. Robert Downey Jr. plays Gardner much like he played Larry on Ally McBeal. That might have been one of the best roles he ever had, but it doesn't mean he should simply reprise it for this role (and that Poll should simply use him that way!). The performance fits, but it is not one of Downey's groundbreaking roles, merely a reprisal of one of his best past performances.

With the film being his character's namesake, Anton Yelchin bears the weight of Charlie Bartlett. Yelchin does an adequate job, consistently portraying Charlie in a way that makes him interesting, if not understandable. He has presence, though he manages to let others breathe in their scenes, most notably he does not smother the performances of Dennings.

On DVD, Charlie Bartlett has pretty much the minimal and expected bonus features for a dramedy of this type. There are featurettes with minimal additional behind-the-scenes information as well as the trailers for the movie and for a few other new releases.

Charlie Bartlett is worth seeing for anyone who likes decent drama, despite the film's stumblings in the middle. For the buy, though, I'd say check it out first; it's not as wonderful as it could have been.

For other works with Anton Yelchin, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Smurfs
Terminator: Salvation
Star Trek
15 Minutes

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed, in order of movie title with links back to the actual reviews!

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Two People Find Their Self-Worth In Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist!

The Good: Interesting characters, Humor, Pacing
The Bad: Predictable plot, Obvious acting
The Basics: A fun movie featuring a very realistic view of young relationships, Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is funny and has a decent theme.


Right up front, Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is above average, but not by much. There is enough in the film - especially the way it left me feeling good, even after an hour after watching it - that I don't begrudge it the seven out of ten I am giving it. That said, there is enough in it that I was less impressed by that makes me think when the buzz (from the movie) wears off, I'll be wishing I had not let a coin decide the rating's fate.

That said, Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is a fun romantic comedy in exactly the same way a Kevin Smith comedy is fun. Smith tends to disguise something meaningful as far as friendships and relationships under a usually placid facade and barrage of dick and fart jokes. Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist does not have that as much as it uses some pretty juvenile gross-out humor (anyone who likes chewing gum will likely be unable to for at least a month after seeing this film). This movie is based upon a novel and this review is for the film only; I have never read the novel and thus I shall not compare or offer analysis on the quality (or lack thereof) of the adaptation.

Norah is a high school senior who has been introduced to Nick through the mix c.d.s he makes for his ex-girlfriend, Tris. Tris is an acquaintance of Norah's and so completely disregards Nick's attempts to reconcile with Tris that Norah is forced to rescue his mixes from the garbage can at school. One Friday night in New York City, one of Norah's favorite bands - Where's Fluffy? - is playing a secret show. This is the same night that Nick's band, the Jerk-offs, is playing in the City. Norah and her friend Caroline catch the Jerk-offs' show and when Tris shows up, Nick is shaken and when she spites Norah, Norah desperately grabs Nick and claims that she came with him.

Nick's gay bandmates offer to take the drunken Caroline home in order to try to get Nick and Norah together (with the aid of a push-up bra), mostly because they disapprove of Tris that much. While Nick and Norah begin to search New York City for clues as to where the secret show for Where's Fluffy? will be take place, they converse, flirt, fight and ultimately overcome obstacles and figure out who they want to be as opposed to who they have been.

Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is fun, but what works best is that for a film that is so utterly predictable - this is basically a road movie - it manages to keep the viewer guessing. In their first in-person meeting, Norah kisses Nick in order to establish the facade for Tris that they are dating. In that kiss, Norah begins to melt into Nick in a way that seems to indicate that this is going to be a love-at-first-kiss type movie. Fortunately, the film decides to go with a little more realism than that and both characters withdraw, gently feel out and run into a great many obstacles, most of which are within themselves.

That is perhaps the most clever aspect of Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist; both protagonists have serious issues and hang-ups that make a sudden change in their romantic lives difficult, if not completely unrealistic, for them. One kiss from Norah does not wake Nick up to the idea that there are other women out there; he remains largely hung up on Tris. People do tend toward the familiar and Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist captures that well.

The movie also captures well the sense and sensibilities of young love. In this regard, Tris is actually a remarkably realistic character. In addition to simply coveting what she does not have, the flirtatious way she tries to interest Nick is both very juvenile and very real. Her sense of exhibitionism and the idea that in her mindset that might make things right between her and Nick is very realistic for a young woman who is still figuring out relationships and sexuality. And it is easy to empathize with her when Nick leaves her stranded. She is not the most likable character, but she is not as monolithic as she initially appears.

Similarly, Norah is not monolithic either. Doors open for this young woman all night and it doesn't take much in the way of observation skills to catch this. The film smartly explains this and the payoff is worth not ruining in a review. In fact, the only truly monolithic character is Nick. Nick is a sensitive and pretty solidly "straight edge" guy who is comfortable enough with himself and his friends to be the only heterosexual in an otherwise gay band. But, he has a serious blindspot and that is that he is attached to Tris. The thing is, it is hard to argue that he grows in the course of the movie. Instead, he opens up to redirecting his heart and his love. The cynic and realist in me notes that there is nothing particularly more stable and beneficial illustrated in Norah than with Tris; she is just a different type of risk relationship (one who is unlikely to cheat on him, at least).

Because I have mentioned it a few time, it is worth noting that Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist presents a pretty positive view of homosexuals. Accompanying Nick, Norah and the drunken Caroline are three young, hot gay men who - it is refreshing to see in American cinema - are not used simply as the butt of jokes or mocked. In fact, they are in some ways the most actualized characters in the film and they work well for providing humor and a chorus to Nick and Norah's adventure.

As far as the acting, goes, Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is a tough sell for me. The movie is inarguably well cast. Kat Dennings, whom I was only familiar with from her performance in Charlie Bartlett, plays another quasi-outsider who has a depth and maturity to her for her age in Norah. Norah and Susan (her character from Charlie Bartlett) bear a number of similarities most notably they are infused with Dennings' confidence and smile. Note to writers and directors utilizing Kat Dennings in the future: Stop having her tell audiences that she's not attractive! Kat Dennings has been condemned to play characters who think that they aren't attractive and there is something patronizing about seeing a self-depricating Hollywood-beautiful young woman in pretty much the choicest demographic there is. Kat Dennings is stunning and part of that is the actress's confidence, so lay off the "I'm so ugly" b.s. That said, Dennings does have some quiet scenes where she masterfully plays wounded and unconfident in such a way that it actually makes the viewer question which way the film will ultimately go.

And while I can forgive any acting/typecasting issues with Kat Dennings (largely due to the fact that she has not appeared in much that I have yet seen!), Michael Cera's performance is all casting. Michael Cera is the perfect awkward, articulate, sensitive guy on film. He played that as Paulie in Juno, after a long string of other, similar performances. This is the one note that directors want Cera to play and at this point, he is not acting, he's just presenting different lines. I'll be impressed when I see Cera on screen playing an unsympathetic serial killer. Seriously, that is the extreme we need to see Cera go to to suggest that he can act now. The best that can be said of his performance in Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist is that he is certainly a master of his niche.

That said, anyone who likes a good romantic comedy about young love will find something to like in Nick And Norah's Infinite Playlist. It is laugh-out-loud funny in places and it does have a strong and worthwhile theme. People younger than myself will probably like the soundtrack as well, but for me it was simply mood music that helped enhance the characters.

For other works with Jay Baruchel, please visit my reviews of:
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
How To Train Your Dragon
She's Out Of My League
Million Dollar Baby

7/10

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

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Summer Blockbuster Season Starts Lukewarm With Thor!

The Good: Effects, Much of the acting
The Bad: Utterly contrived plot elements, Disconnected preview moments, Hemsworth doesn’t pop.
The Basics: In a very, very weak “recommend,” I find Thor to be a pretty pathetic Marvel film outing to open a highly competitive Summer Blockbuster Season.


It is here at last! Yes, every year Summer Blockbuster Season comes to us with the big special-effects driven movies that seek to get the 11 – 19 year old reckless consumer dollars, despite jacked up movie prices and declining film quality. Summer Blockbuster Season is a time when the quality films that get noticed for awards are almost entirely absent and spectacle rules. That does not mean that great films cannot be released during Summer Blockbuster Season, as The Dark Knight (reviewed here!) and Inception (reviewed here!) have amply proven. Even among the usual super hero and sequel schlock, Summer Blockbuster Season sometimes produces some cool films with great replayability, like last year’s Iron Man 2 (reviewed here!). For 2011, Summer Blockbuster Season looks to be mostly filled with sequels, from Transformers, Pirates Of The Caribbean and X-Men. This summer there are surprisingly few original flicks to look forward to, so one has to assume that the rollout of the new franchises is supposed to prey upon the hopes of fans looking for the appearance of new. Sadly, Thor is not that.

This past weekend was Free Comic Book Day and I spent the day working at the comic book store I manage and hearing many people praise the film Thor, its acting and the way the movie fit into the larger Marvel Universe. My reward to myself for a well-executed event on Free Comic Book Day was to go to a late showing of Thor in 3-D with a person who seems to have a lot of the same interests as me and with whom I am beginning to forge a friendship. When the movie was done, we shared thoughts and while he liked the film, I was much, much more neutral to it. This, I feel, has a lot to do with what some call “ridiculously high standards” on my part and which I just call having standards.

Thor is not a bad movie, but it is riddled with problems and the fundamental one was that the movie never seemed to pop on its own. Allow me to explain: the best aspects of Thor seemed to be with the tie-ins with other Marvel Universe films and the sense that this is a weaker chapter in a larger story comes through whenever the film is not being painfully dull on its own. This is, in many ways, a big, special-effects driven movie which suffers as so many other special effects films do: it doesn’t develop the story as much as it ought to and it hopes the viewer won’t notice because there are so many shiny lights and bright objects on the screen. The other aspect of not popping on its own I will address more in a moment, but it has to do with the way the film was promoted. I saw the preview trailer for Thor exactly once. One time, no more. When the moments that were in the preview trailer came up, I recognized them instantly. While some might call that great memory, I recognize it as what it is: the moments from the film’s trailer were mostly incongruent moments which pull the viewer outside the narrative. In other words, those moments do what they are supposed to do, SELL the film, not tell the story. So, when they came up in the movie, I was pulled out of the story for these moments where characters were essentially saying, “Hey, look at this cool thing we created!”

While Jane Foster is out in the New Mexico desert chasing storms of a celestial nature, she and her team run into a man. That man is Thor and how he came to be in the middle of the desert is then explained. As one of the two sons of Odin, on the plane of existence known as Asgard, Thor is raised with the responsibility of protecting the realms of the universe from the Frost Giants. For decades, Odin has kept King Laufey and the Frost Giants bottled up in their own, desolate world. But as Odin prepares to pass the mantle of leadership on to Thor, Frost Giants invade the weapon’s vault of Asgard. Stopped immediately, the Frost Giant invasion inspires Thor to defy his father and lead his friends on an invasion of the Frost Giant realm. Rescued from the overwhelming odds by the power of his hammer and then Odin himself, Thor is then banished to Earth.

On the higher realms, Loki takes up the mantle of leadership as Odin falls into a mystical sleep and on Earth, Thor finds himself both mortal and powerless. Discovered by Jane, Thor breaks out of his hospital room and goes in search of his mystical hammer, which has arrived on Earth as well. S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, led by Coulson, have discovered the hammer and when Thor is unable to dislodge it, all involved feel dismayed. So when Thor’s friends decide to defy Loki and bring Thor out of exile, it falls to the comparatively powerless hero to stop the Destroyer that Loki sends after them.

While I know I am in the minority with feeling more neutral to Thor, writing up the plot summary only helps to illustrate my point. Thor strings along viewers with a series of fairly weak events and it fails to pop. There is never a moment that defines the hero or the villain in such a way that the viewer feels like the movie is building to something. The result is a string of events which meander toward an eventual end which is neither unpredictable nor spectacular. As my viewing companion noted, when one of the battles occurred, it seemed like it was the climax, but then there was another hour to the movie.

Put another way, Thor both tries to be too many things and it follows such a disappointing formula that it is utterly unsurprising. The two are deeply intertwined, but they add up to a largely unsatisfying cinematic experience on every level but in terms of spectacle. Thor is split between the higher planes and Earth and this might be the first big mistake that writers Ashley Edward Miller, Zack Stentz, Don Payne, J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich make. I might focus my sense of blame a bit more on Straczynski for one reason: Stracyznski is an accomplished writer whose works like Babylon 5 have proven that viewers can become completely invested in a place that is not Earth and has little to do with Earth. Works like The Lord Of The Rings (reviewed here) have illustrated that viewers today can handle menace to a completely fictional realm and become entirely transfixed by the situation. So, why then, does Thor insist on spreading the story between the higher realms and Earth? We could have handled a story of a war between the Asgard people and the Frost Giants without any interaction on Earth. In fact, that might have worked even better as the film leaps from Thor and Loki as children together to the day Thor is prepared to ascend to his father’s throne and as he struts through the hall of people, my thought instantly was “what has he done in the years in between to make him so beloved among his people?” Sure, he twirls his hammer, gets cheers from the crowd, but who is the man and why do we care? My answer to the latter question was “I don’t.” And that cripples the movie right out of the gate.

Moreover, when one is dealing with archetypes and mythology, the story ought to do something that challenges or interests the viewer. After meandering from the political machinations of Asgard driven to the brink of war to Thor being banished, there is no real surprise that the jealous Loki is somehow involved. In fact, the acting of the child playing the young Loki ruins any sense of surprise as his reaction to Odin saying that only one of his two sons will be king informs the viewer instantly that Loki wants that for himself and knows he will not get it. But without having read any Thor comic books, viewers with minimal mythological education are set up for disappointment. Loki is the trickster god in Norse mythology. So, we expect Loki to be a trickster in Thor and lo and behold, the machinations that affect Asgard are deeply related to Loki and his ambition. This is the exact type of disappointment that comes from writers naming characters Brutus or Judas and then expecting viewers to feel some sense of surprise when they betray the hero of the story. It’s built in to the premise; you name a character something like Loki or Brutus and there are expectations. Thor rather stupidly seems to expect that viewers will be surprised by Loki doing mischief.

But more than that, and I harp on this because Thor is very much Loki’s story (as evidenced by the post-closing credits scene), Loki becomes such a disappointing villain because his ambitions are never adequately explored. I’m sick to death of villains where they want power for no particular reason. What is Loki’s reason for wanting to be king, what does he want to accomplish? This might seem like a stupid question, but all of the great writers who have great villains address this question and Thor’s do not do this. Director Kenneth Branagh deserves a real poke in the eye for failing so spectacularly in this regard. Branagh is well-known for his movies based on Shakespeare works and one need look no further than The Tragedy Of Othello to see what makes a truly convincing villain. In Othello, Iago is not blindly ambitious; he and Othello do the same work and only Othello gets the credit. Iago is a great villain because he has been slighted, his talents have been overlooked. In Thor Loki is just a pissed off guy because he’s a whiny brat.

To be fair to Loki, it’s not like Thor has done anything demonstrably great, so the weakness of Thor is that the hero isn’t all that great and the villain isn’t all that notable, so neither truly deserves to take over for Odin (who is seen doing more for the realm of Asgard than either of his sons). So, to reiterate, a whole film spent with Asgard and the Frost Giant realm might have set up an Earth-bound sequel that made the viewer care about the protagonist and the antagonist.

Which leads us to Jane, Dr. Selvig, Darcy and the plot of Thor on Earth. I can barely muster up enough interest to write about them because when the hammer of Thor falls to Earth, Agent Coulson becomes an antagonist and for those who have seen the Iron Man movies, it is hard to consider him a compelling villain. And by the time Thor’s friends arrive and the big bad, the Destroyer, is dispatched, the viewer does not care.

Why is that? That comes back to what I mentioned before. Thor is busy telling its story when the main narrative is cut out of for bits that have no particular relevance to the tale and were, coincidentally enough, used in almost all of the promos. So, bits like Thor shirtless being commented on by Darcy, Thor having coffee and smashing his mug and Jane hoping desperately that Thor is not just crazy are incongruent with the tone and pace of the rest of the film. Thor topless and being commented on as “cut” pops up in the movie like, “Hey, look at how hot Chris Hemsworth is! Okay, now that you’ve seen it, let’s get back to the story!” While I’ve loved Kat Dennings in everything else I’ve seen her in (and to Branagh’s credit, this is the first movie I’ve seen her in where she is not wearing excessive lipstick), her character is so utterly unnecessary in Thor as to be unenjoyable to watch. All of the worst lines that don’t fit the movie – and were in the trailers – are delivered by Dennings and it pains me to write that. The only thing worse is the contrived kiss that pops up late in the movie and Branagh and the writers ought to feel some sense of shame over putting together one of the least compelling, least believable pseudo-romantic sequences of modern cinema. Honestly, there is not a kiss on screen I’ve seen ever that didn’t feel like “we need to have this in because it is That Kind Of Movie” than the eventual kiss in Thor. Forget actor chemistry, there is so little character chemistry built into the moment that when Thor and Jane mack, it feels cheap.

On the character front, in addition to Loki not being painted as a particularly compelling villain, Thor does not rise to the occasion as a hero, at least not in a meaningful way. Separated from his mystical hammer, Odin’s purpose is clearly to teach Thor the benefit of humility and some measure of judgment whereby pacifism may be realistically considered. The ridiculous notion of Thor is that he gets his taste of humility long before anything cinematically spectacular actually happens. When Thor awakens in the hospital bound to his bed, his helplessness and frustration are palatable and for a god to be so trapped teaches Thor the lesson he was supposed to learn. Only, it doesn’t because it’s not cinematic enough and more contrived events happen that lead Thor to the understanding of compassion and a protective instinct that leads him not to value life much more, but does allow him to go kick some ass with his hammer again. I’m sorry, what was the character journey in Thor?

As for the acting, there are some great performances in Thor but they come where they are expected. Sir Anthony Hopkins delivers as Odin and Colm Feore rocks his few scenes as King Laufey and when the two are on screen together, they have the movie’s most powerful dramatic moments. Chris Hemsworth, who made the most of his ten minutes in Star Trek (reviewed here!) lacks the substance to actually make the viewer care about Thor. I’m not sure that the problem here was writing, but I don’t think it has to do with physicality. Hemsworth is convincing enough with the strength of Thor, but he doesn’t sell much else from him. Natalie Portman, as Jane, is likely to shock viewers by how she took such an unremarkable role. Jane might have potential as a character, but her parts are mashed in between so many fantastical elements and being talked down to that she never truly develops. That Portman goes along with it is disappointing after a string of strong and interesting characters that she has played. It would not surprise me if Portman refused to return for the inevitable Thor sequel.

Finally, the spectacle front (worth only one point in my ten-point rating scale). Thor is appropriately trippy and spectacular, especially on the celestial realms of Asgard and the Frost Giant realm. Even so, there were noticeable moments during the spectacular battles where character movement was off and it was obvious what was done with CG technology. The 3-D effects were all right, but I’d recommend sticking with the 2-D version as nothing is so incredible in the 3-D (I’m seeing Thor again with my wife this week and we’re not paying for the 3-D, so if that impression changes, I’ll revise). The settings, make-up and costumes are actually more impressive than the battle sequences in Thor.

Ultimately, Thor opens Summer Blockbuster Season and it does so with a movie that only works if one truly disconnects their brains or enters with no expectations that the journey will be as meaningful as the destination, for the movie wanders about until it eventually ends without actually doing much in between. I would recommend staying through the final credits, as the scene there actually was interesting. But, it’s a lot of set-up for yet another Marvel movie and it’s hard to get excited about that one after this one was so mediocre.

For other Marvel universe films, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men
Blade: Trinity
Daredevil
Iron Man

5/10

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

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