The Slow Death Of The Revenant.

The Good: Scenery, Moments of performance
The Bad: Boring, Light on character development
The Basics: The Revenant is a tiresome survivalist film that belabors the death of yet another of character played by Leonardo DiCaprio.


Perhaps the reason I am not overly excited about this year's Best Picture Oscar race is that some of the nominees are genres that do not overly thrill me. The Revenant is chief among the films that I had no inherent interest in. Man vs. nature films are a tougher sell for me and The Revenant has been analogized to The Grey (reviewed here!), with Leonardo DiCaprio replacing Liam Neeson at the top and a bear as the film's primary antagonist.

In actuality, The Revenant is a period survival piece and it is easy to argue that the film is garnering so much attention this year because it is the latest film by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu, who wrote and directed Birdman (reviewed here!) last year. The Revenant is beautifully shot, but its nomination for Best Picture does seem like a courtesy nomination based on Birdman's success. The adaptation of the novel by Michael Punke is gruesome and boring.

Hugh Glass is a fur trader in 1820 whose camp is attacked by natives. The hunting party is caught off guard by a tribe that sweeps through and murders almost everyone working there. Hugh and a few of his coworkers manage to escape to the boat. Captain Henry takes Glass's advice and evacuates the men from the boat and they hide the pelts to try to elude the native hunting party. The natives are hunting Powaqa, a woman taken from the village.

When Glass is about to kill a bear cub, the bear's mother comes and tears him apart. Glass manages to kill the mother bear and survive, thanks in part to the hunting party finding him. When carrying Glass's body becomes untenable, Captain Henry wants to put Glass out of his misery, but is unable to. He bribes Fitzgerald, Bridger, and Glass's son, Hawk, to stay with him. Fitzgerald tries to kill Glass and shortly thereafter, the hunters leave Glass for dead. While Glass fights for survival, he stumbles upon Powaqa and as he clings to life, he does what he can to return her to the search party hunting for her.

No doubt, Mark Smith, Punke, and Inarritu would describe The Revenant as their reinvention of Moby Dick with the hunt for Powaqa and the determination to stay alive filling the niches of the white whale and the survival instinct that the famous novel utilizes. But, the truth is, The Revenant is a man-heavy piece that plods along until it finally, mercifully, ends. The journey is not at all pleasant and the characters are not engaging enough to captivate the viewer. Indeed, outside the cache that winning the Best Picture gave Inarritu, it is hard to see how The Revenant even got made. I cannot figure the demographic the film might appeal to; it is long, slow, miserable, and lacks a unique statement or core to drive the viewer to empathy.

That said, Leonardo DiCaprio is fine as Glass and Tom Hardy once again reinvents his entire being to portray the villainous Fitzgerald. Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu makes The Revenant look good, but the spectacle aspect of the film is simplistic and uninteresting; the average nature documentary has equally good cinematography. So, the failure to present a story or interesting characters or performances that one wants to watch for their greatness makes The Revenant two and a half hours of wasted time.

For other works with Will Poulter, please visit my reviews of:
The Maze Runner
We're The Millers
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

2/10

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

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

Messy, Musical, Melodramatic: The Great Gatsby Flops!

The Good: The humor works well, Decent acting, One or two moments of direction
The Bad: Pacing, Horrible soundtrack, Dull character progression, Most of the direction, Voiceovers
The Basics: Baz Lurhmann adapts The Great Gatsby with an overwhelming sense of (poor) style over substance.


One of the most-hyped films of 2013 was The Great Gatsby and given how many people recommended the film to me, I felt some compulsion to watch the movie. Having finally taken in Baz Luhrmann’s interpretation of the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, I find myself in the minority once again. Luhrmann overwhelms what could have been an amazing cinematic rendition of the novel with an erratic sense of his style: while I am usually loathe to rate movies higher based on them possessing great special effects, with The Great Gatsby I find myself unwilling to limit my negative impression of the effects to only one of the ten customary points: in other words, the special effects in The Great Gatsby are so distractingly bad that they make the film drag and they destroy the positive aspects of the movie.

The Great Gatsby uses a modern soundtrack (Jay-Z, Beyonce, etc.) in its period piece in a way that seems like Luhrmann is trying to be trendy and edgy, but is executed with such sloppiness that it guts the resonance of the film almost immediately. Even worse are the visual effects. Luhrmann makes a conscious choice to change the film grain on many of his wide, party shots. This is completely distracting and pulls the viewer out of the realism of the film. The net result is a movie whose characters tell a story that should be interesting, but is so poorly presented that it becomes excruciating to sit through. And I write this as one who recalls loving the novel The Great Gatsby. As my wife noted, “For a movie with such an interesting mystery surrounding the protagonist, this movie sucked!”

In Prohibition Era, Post-World War I New York City, Nick Carraway is suffering from insomnia, depression and alcoholism and to relieve his symptoms, his doctor recommends he writes down his story. Carraway tells the story of his cousin, Daisy Buchanan, and his neighbor, J. Gatsby. Gatsby lives in the mansion next to the small home Carraway is in and Carraway travels to the other side of the Bay to visit Daisy and her husband Tom. After a drunken day with Tom, Tom’s mistress, and their friends, Carraway is invited to a party at Gatsby’s mansion. There, he meets the reclusive Gatsby (few of the party guests actually know who Gatsby is and only Carraway received an invitation to the party). Soon, Gatsby is taking Carraway around town and trying to convince the stock broker that he is trustworthy.

Gatsby asks Carraway for a favor (through a mutual friend); for Nick to invite Daisy over for tea. Carraway complies and he begins to learn of the convoluted history between Daisy and Gatsby and their affair that ended five years prior when Gatsby did not return from the War and Daisy married Tom. As Daisy and Gatsby rekindle their romance, Tom begins to investigate Gatsby’s obscured past. Carraway is drawn into the web of lies surrounding Tom, Daisy, and Gatsby and witnesses the destruction of multiple lives around him.

It’s hard for me to tell what Baz Luhrmann hoped to accomplish with The Great Gatsby. Was he trying to make a modern reinterpretation of the 1920s? The soundtrack seems to suggest that. Was he trying to make a film that captured the tone and feeling of the past? The film grain seems to suggest that. Was he going for a literal translation of The Greaty Gatsby for the screen? Toby Maguire’s unceasing voiceovers as Nick Carraway seem to suggest that (as he is thus able to deliver some of Fitzgerald’s best lines from the book that were not in the form of dialogue). Is he trying to make a smart character-driven movie? Leonardo DiCaprio’s ever-changing accent as Gatsby brilliantly shows the viewer what they need to know (that Gatsby’s character is shifty in nature), though that sort of intelligence is the exception, rather than the rule.

What Baz Luhrmann makes instead is a mess. Lacking one cohesive vision or idea, The Great Gatsby seems to take the shotgun approach and the film is bright and musical the way that Baz Luhrmann is known for. Unfortunately, it adds up to nothing nearly as special or interesting as the viewer would hope. The soap operatic nature of the love parallelogram that the main characters in The Great Gatsby are engaged in is exaggerated in the film.

Nick Carraway is well-presented by Toby Maguire, voiceovers notwithstanding. Carraway is reserved, but lacks the nervous quality of most of Maguire’s characters and the result is a more confident, less geeky Maguire which makes Carraway easy to watch. He becomes an interesting conduit to experience the life and times of Gatsby.

Leonardo DiCaprio is good as J. Gatsby, though it is Joel Edgerton who steals The Great Gatsby as Tom Buchanan. While some might be wowed by Carey Mulligan as Daisy, it’s hard to blame Baz Luhrmann for her. The character is virtually impossible to cast, but Mulligan was a particularly white bread option for her and she is much more bland than vivacious as Daisy. Sadly, she does not have the on-screen gravitas to make viewers believe that Gatsby and Tom would compete over her. But Edgerton . . . Edgerton plays Tom as menacing, charismatic, and smart. Despite being an incredibly unlikable individual, Tom is completely credible for all of the range of emotions he goes through. That type of transition can only be sold effectively by a wonderful actor and Joel Edgerton lives up in The Great Gatsby. Edgerton is tight-lipped and carries his body with a tension that makes his character seem angry under the surface in virtually every scene. Quite simply, he rocks.

Sadly, the Baz Luhrmann interpretation of The Great Gatsby does not. The film is a drawn-out mess that uses a few key literary elements and combines them with over-the-top moviemaking to make a film that ultimately adds up to less than what it should have been.

3.5/10

For other works with Joel Edgerton, please visit my reviews of:
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
Smokin’ Aces
Revenge Of The Sith
Attack Of The Clones

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

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

Baz Luhrmann’s Creativity Does Not Diminish William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet The Way His Direction Does!

The Good: Great story, Decent chemistry, Most of the acting, Moments of direction
The Bad: Most of the direction
The Basics: A modern recasting of William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is creative and accurate, but unfortunately cut more often than not.


Tonight, perusing my wife’s DVD collection for a new (to me) film to watch, I came upon William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet. My wife enthusiastically urged me to put in the film and I was in a Shakespeare mood, so I eagerly complied. Generally, I am glad I did.

That said, I have no inherent issue with modern interpretations of Shakespeare, but Baz Luhrmann’s William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet does not quite land it for me the way it does for my wife. In the case of William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet, all that really has been changed is that the film is set in modern Verona Beach and a few contemporary songs have been thrown in. The language is Shakespeare’s (for the most part) and the story is the classic Shakespeare play adapted to use the full scope of the screen well. Unfortunately, the directing is erratic at best and some of the acting is not all it ought to be.

In Verona Beach, the Montagues and the Capulets are warring families, gangs essentially. After a fight at a gas station, Benvolio reports back to the head of the Montague family, who is preoccupied with thoughts of his son, Romeo. Romeo, brooding young man that he is, is not eager to engage in the family war and is actually more interested in love. When Mercutio invites Romeo to a Capulet-thrown party, he goes, but without any real enthusiasm. At the party, however, he falls in love with Juliet upon first gazing upon her (through an aquarium) and she is taken with him, despite her mother trying to set him up with Dave Paris.

Following the party, Romeo and Juliet reunite, flirt, and confirm their love for one another. After a secret wedding, a fight breaks out in which Mercutio is killed and in anger, after being much provoked, Romeo kills Tybalt. This earns Romeo banishment from Verona Beach and with him gone, Juliet’s mother pushes her to marry Paris. But with the help of Juliet’s nurse and Father Laurence, Romeo and Juliet make plans to reunite and run away together, before all those plans lead to inevitable tragedy.

William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is not Franco Zeffirelli’s interpretation of Romeo And Juliet (that was the cinematic version of the story I was raised on and remains a pretty true – literal – interpretation of Shakespeare’s play) and for all the risks it takes – with guns and street fighting – it is pretty tame. In fact, there are only two real strikes against it.

The first is Baz Luhrmann’s direction. The creativity – Mercutio in drag is fine, using televisions for the narrators, etc. – is enviable, though the color palate in the first half of the film is garish. Baz Luhrmann is creative and the creativity stands on its own, for the most part. The issue, though, is with the direction. Luhrmann has created an erratic film. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet starts lit in bright colors, flamboyant and comical performances, and cuts made so manically that it is almost nauseating. The moment Romeo and Juliet spy one another through the fish tank, the film’s direction changes. The cuts are – blissfully – more static from that point on, the exception being the fight sequence that costs Mercutio his life. The film is still artful, but it looks much more professional and does not rely upon the shock of “modernized Shakespeare” the way the opening half does. Luhrmann also appears to think his audience is idiotic in that he repeats sections, most notably the opening monologue, multiple times as if it were not clear by the words and images he puts on screen.

The only other issue is with the performance of Claire Danes. Danes has been fabulous in each and every other thing I have seen her in, but in William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet she is more often than not stiff or tentative and she stood out at several key moments, especially when playing off Miriam Margolyes (the Nurse). That said, she and Leonardo DiCaprio (Romeo) have great on-screen chemistry. From the moment they first appear on screen together, their chemistry is entirely convincing and enjoyable to watch. They portray young love perfectly.

On DVD, William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet features a commentary track and galleries of production artwork. There are also music videos for some of the music works in the film. William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet is good, but not extraordinary; it takes the incredible poetic lines of Shakespeare and assembles them in an erratically-executed fashion.

For other films based on (or about) Shakespeare’s works, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Hamlet
O
Shakespeare In Love

6/10

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

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

Blood Diamond: Another Socially Conscious Movie That Failed To Make A Difference

The Good: Well-written, Good characters, Decent direction, Social message, Acting
The Bad: Feels a little long/predictable, "The Market" did not "get" it
The Basics: With vivid characters played by some of the best actors in the industry, the true cost of the diamond trade is exposed with brutal clarity for the viewer.


When I saw V For Vendetta (reviewed here!) in theaters, I knew that the movie had essentially failed (despite bringing in oodles of money) because the Revolution did not come. When I spoke with a friend about it, she objected saying that if the Revolution came, she would drop everything in a heartbeat. She was offended when I told her that meant she didn't "get" the movie; the point of it was that WE are the Revolution and that each of us must rise up and lead it, we can't follow it. So, our corrupt government continues to exploit the people and women and men in the United States remain slaves to their jobs instead of the economy serving them. Blood Diamond, which is now out on DVD, is another movie that the American people simply did not "get." I say this because diamonds are still worn by Americans and cherished.

Solomon Bo is an African who is captured by militants and forced to mine diamonds at gunpoint. When he finds a giant diamond, he manages to hide it as a military strike saves him and several other enslaved men. In the holding cell, a guard who saw what Solomon pulled from the earth demands to know what happened to it and this gets the attention of Danny Archer, a diamond smuggler. Archer is sprung from jail by his wealthy patrons and he uses his influence to get Solomon free so they can recover the diamond.

With the aid of a plucky reporter, the two enter a war zone to track down the diamond, which Archer wants for profit, Maddy wants for the story and Solomon wants in order to get his family out of the refugee camp they are (essentially) imprisoned in.

I sat down to Blood Diamond because a friend of mine who pulls movies for me mistook my interest in seeing The Last King Of Scotland for Blood Diamond (don't ask). The thing is, I enjoyed Blood Diamond a bit, though a lot of the information was not new to me. The R.U.F. - the rebel forces - drive into Solomon's village and take his son (and many children) away, where they essentially brainwash the boy into a killing machine. This was something I knew before (and not just from the second season of Lost, reviewed here!) and have been troubled by. Blood Diamond presents the reality of youth enslavement and indoctrination into killing machines with the horror that is mirrored only by its truth. This happens every day while the world sits back and through apathy essentially abets the crimes.

I found myself enjoying the movie despite the humanization of the problem. I understand why writers Charles Leavitt and C. Gaby Mitchell needed to put a human face on the problem of blood diamonds (diamonds that are smuggled through war zones and laundered into the legal flow of diamonds). Most Americans don't know about the problems and carnage associated with the diamond trade, so it makes perfect sense to indoctrinate them with a story that resonates as personally as possible. When the credits came up and I saw the movie was directed by Edward Zwick, I found myself pleasantly surprised; it made sense the movie so effectively humanized the problem. Zwick is a master of relating stories about human relationships; his show Once And Again (season two reviewed here!) remains one of my favorite series'.

Central to the movie is the relationship between Solomon and Danny and Solomon and his family. Solomon manages the virtually impossible; finding his family in a refugee camp of one million people. The need to save them and rescue them from their status as citizens without nation gives him a compelling reason to go back for the diamond and risk his life. Solomon and Danny have an intriguing relationship as Danny's isolation with the world - his diamond market patron has essentially distanced himself from the smuggler - allows him to open up with Solomon and the probing questions the less morally relativistic man asks him weaken his acceptance in the way things are.

The movie works when it is a brutal social and political commentary on the diamond market with the foils of Danny's greed served opposite Solomon's desire to protect and recover his family and his homeland. Unfortunately, the story diverges for a while in a somewhat predictable and pointless romantic subplot between Danny and reporter Maddy. It makes the story more human and complicated, but not necessarily better. As it is, Blood Diamond clocks in at almost two and a half hours, so the romantic plot is not needed to fill time.

But the movie works because at the end of the day, it can be reduced to the price of one (albeit huge) diamond. Consider the number of people killed, maimed (the opening scenes where the R.U.F. starts lopping off the hands of villagers begins the process of finding the diamond) and wounded combined with the material resources - planes, helicopters, etc. - destroyed to find and retrieve the diamond and the price tag gets truly astonishing. The moralizing that does not appear in the movie is the connection I shall now make:

Diamonds are worthless.

Because there is nothing backing our economy (we are not bound by a gold or silver standard), all that holds together the U.S. economy is faith. The belief in the strength of the dollar defines the value of the dollar. Thus, all $1.00 is worth is what you can buy with it and what you are willing to do for it. I frequently tell my students that working at their minimum wage jobs they are selling their souls for 4 Value Menu hamburgers and hour. None of them ever quit their jobs. But the point holds, which is the purpose behind collective bargaining. If Americans refused to work for less money, the uprising would declare a more balanced value to the dollar because the connection between the life people possess and the acquisition of material things would be made so apparent that only the most apathetic would slave their lives away for so few crumbs from the corporations. Diamonds are dirt. Dirt that is declared as pretty because it is clear and sparkley and . . . honestly I don't know why. Diamonds have value because greedy industries that thrive on them tell the masses they are valuable - one of the most poignant moments in Blood Diamond comes when a character reveals that the rebels want to flood the market with a billion dollars worth of diamonds in order to fund their war. In the face of evidence like that (where such quantity is available), diamonds are no longer valuable based on their rarity. Diamonds are worth what people are willing to pay and what people are willing to do for them.

And the question left unanswered by the audience of the movie is this: Will you have anything at all to do with diamonds, will you perpetrate the myth of their worth, with even the POSSIBILITY that the true cost of your diamond is at least one hundred human lives lost, the enslavement of a people and the perpetration of war and maiming of a less developed nation? As the market has not collapsed, I may only assume people either did not see Blood Diamond or it failed to carry its message in a way that was meaningful enough to resonate with Americans.

I'm not sure what more director Edward Zwick could do to make it resonate with Americans. When you show women and children being slaughtered by men with automatic weapons as part of the system that brings diamonds to the world, there's not much more that can be shown to connect humanity to the problems. I don't believe the failure is Zwick's.

For those considering taking in Blood Diamond, this is not just moralizing, it is an entertaining film. The journey of Solomon Bo is extraordinary and compelling. The characters are all interesting and Solomon and Danny are completely empathetic. This is a movie about how far people will go and they go far.

What makes the characters work is the acting. Stephen Collins has a brief, but memorable, cameo as an Ambassador who is crusading against conflict diamonds and he was well cast for the bit part. Jennifer Connelly gives a great performance here. Given about as much of a role as she had in Dark City (reviewed here!), Connelly gives a supporting performance that is compelling for the audience in that it confronts the issues directly that the other characters live around. Connelly manages to make Maddy slightly more than just a "type" by infusing her strong sense of confidence in her body language into the strong-willed reporter she is embodying. Connelly evokes the essence of a crusader to make Maddy professionally strong and softens to express an underlying loneliness to make Maddy human.

Connelly plays off Leonardo DiCaprio perfectly and DiCaprio is astoundingly good as Danny Archer. DiCaprio defines Danny with an angry expression and constant heat from his eyes that is piercing. The maintenance of this facade is impressive and it does not waver in this movie.

The movie hinges on the acting of Djimon Hounsou. Hounsou came to my attention in the third season of Alias (reviewed here!) where he had such a distinct and memorable role that it astounds me to find he was only in 3 episodes. His presence was much bigger than that. Hounsou reveals the depth of his acting ability in Blood Diamond by creating an essential human character with such decency and grace that there's not even the hint of the heavy he played on Alias. That's acting: to create two entirely opposite characters and make both vividly believable.

Blood Diamond is reminiscent of the truly amazing film The Mission from the 1980s. The Mission (reviewed here!) explored the church conflicts that resulted in the enslavement of natives in South America. One wonders if The Mission had been made while the events in it were current if it would have had an effect, if it would have stopped the carnage. The events in Blood Diamond are going on now. The question must be asked, can the exposure of these truths to the masses stand as the wake-up call to stop this carnage? I wait, astonished that the diamond industry continues to thrive; were I Zwick I would have hoped by the time the film was released on DVD, the industry would have collapsed.

For other works with Stephen Collins, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Three Stooges
It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Seasons 1 & 2
Star Trek: The Motion Picture
All The President’s Men

8/10

Check out how this film stacks up against the others I have reviewed by visiting my ever-growing Movie Index Page where the reviews are organized from best film to worst!

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

I Can't Believe I Missed Lost For This! I Justifiably Pan Revolutionary Road!

The Good: A few moments of performance/character, Soundtrack
The Bad: Melodramatic, Nothing happens, Poor writing, Unlikable characters, Soundtrack telegraphs everything.
The Basics: Boring, jaded and not filled with performances nearly as great as many claim, Revolutionary Road is a flop for director Sam Mendes!


[Note: This review was originally written off a preview screening of the film, but I liked the title and opening, so I am leaving it unaltered. Enjoy!]

It's a tough thing to stand before your fellow critics and ask "What movie did you just watch?!" for a film that is receiving universal praise. However, having just endured the latest Sam Mendez film, Revolutionary Road, I stand up in the community, shake my head, and firmly and loudly shout "Don't go to see this movie!" To add insult to injury, tonight while I was at the screening of this film, I was forced to miss the season premiere of my favorite television show, Lost. That just hurts.

Before the pile-on begins, it is worth establishing that: 1. I like dark films, 2. I like films with great performances, and 3. I was utterly unbiased going into Revolutionary Road; I had not seen a single trailer or read even one review of the film. And because it is worth mentioning, I have been a fan of some of the works of director Sam Mendez, most notably American Beauty (reviewed here!). As we say in the biz; this is no American Beauty!

April and Frank spot one another across a smoky room in 1948 America. They connect and seven years later, they have two children, an unhappy marriage and April's dreams of being an actress have died a very public death. As their marriage falls apart, Frank and April remember the better days, how they found their little house in suburban Connecticut on Revolutionary Road and the time they spent there happy. As Frank begins an affair with a new secretary at his machine firm - where he works in advertising - April contemplates the lack of direction in her life and mourns her missed opportunities.

But April comes across a photograph of Frank in Paris and recalls how it was the one place he wanted to return to. April pitches to Frank that they do just that. So, they begin preparations to sell the house and car and move to France where April will work and Frank will find himself. Yet nothing goes quite according to plan as April gets pregnant and Frank is offered a whopping promotion and raise and their dreams begin to die yet again.

A few years ago, there came a film that did not fare so well called The Story Of Us (reviewed here!) which basically had Bruce Willis and Michelle Pfeiffer yelling at one another. Their characters were at the end of a disintegrating marriage and the film was largely unpleasant. The thing is, the critics and viewers seemed to realize that. With Revolutionary Road, most seem to be giving the characters a free pass on substance because they are played by Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. The thing is, Revolutionary Road, like The Story Of Us is basically a lot of yelling and one tires of it quickly. Sure, it has some great realism, but it also is not at all entertaining. Does it capture the reality of life women were forced to endure at the time? Undeniably? Is it worth watching? Not really, no.

The reason for my antipathy is quite simple; the film goes nowhere. There is no physical or emotional journey in Revolutionary Road. After the establishment of the relationship between Frank and April, there is a scene that illustrates the two of them married and fighting bitterly over April's flop of a play. We, the viewer get it. What next? Unfortunately, the answer to that is simply "more of the same." Revolutionary Road continues and revisits the same fighting, performances and character issues over the course of the interminable two hours this film runs. There is no catharsis, but worse than that, there is never any real hope, no growth, not even much in the way of events. When looking at the plot of Revolutionary Road it is remarkably simple: Frank and April, in an unhappy marriage, decide to leave the U.S., they have the mentally worn-down John over for dinner, have affairs, are offered promotions and the end comes (far, far too late for most viewers to care). Instead, the movie plods along with little to recommend it as the characters spend the bulk of the time yelling at one another.

Add to that, none of the characters are particularly likable. One of the first things Frank does is have an affair on April. He's not a good husband or a particularly good man and when things have the chance to turn around, he continues to make poor decisions that make it utterly impossible to respect the man. Similarly, April likely suffers from bipolar and she truly suffers. Divorce, as this is set in the 1950s is not mentioned, but she is not exactly blameless for the condition of the marriage, either. She baits Frank and lets him treat her terribly instead of leaving him.

Equally problematic are the supporting characters. The neighbor, Shep, is clearly interested in April, director Sam Mendes makes that so obvious only an idiot or someone who, I suppose, is literally blind, will not see that. Actor David Harbour leers through all of the scenes they share and the film plods along with a sort of "get on with it feel" because the viewer pretty much knows that at some point April will have and affair or Shep is going to rape her. One of those two things will happen, because that is how the guy is looking at her constantly. That Shep's wife, Milly, never seems to catch on is just insulting to all concerned.

The only character with anything going for him is the crazy guy, John and even that is somewhat problematic. It has become cliche that only the crazies truly see things as they are (though I'll abide by that in being a crazy that calls this film flat-out boring). John is just the embodiment of that archetype.

Only slightly better than the dismal characters and utter lack of character development is the acting in the film. Kathryn Hahn, who plays Milly, is so over-the-top in Revolutionary Road that it took me a while to figure out why her performance seemed so familiar. I challenge anyone who has seen Scott Thompson in drag on The Kids In The Hall to watch Hahn in Revolutionary Road and not find her performance derivative of that. Moreover, in his second appearance on screen, Michael Shannon appears to be channeling Heath Ledger's version of the Joker for his portrayal of John.

As for the leads, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio are quite safely within their established ranges in their roles of April and Frank. DiCaprio, for example, is giving his fans nothing that is not within his abilities that we didn't see in the way he played his character in Blood Diamond. He can yell, he can play puppy dog eyes, we get it. What's new? Nothing here. In a similar fashion, Kate Winslet gives us nothing we haven't seen before in other films of hers. She showed more range in her single episode of Extras than she did in this entire film.

Movies that are dark are not to be shunned. There are plenty of films with oppressive moods that are still great. This is not one of them. You can have a movie without much plot, if it still has great characters or amazing acting. This has neither. You can have a film with lousy characters and it can work if they do something interesting, in Revolutionary Road, they do not. And you can have poor acting in a film where there is a story or decent writing or even intriguing character developments. Revolutionary Road has none of those things. If you bother to sit through the film up to the title plaque, know this: you've seen all the film has in the way of acting and a journey.

It's truly not worthy.

For other works with Dylan Baker, check out my reviews of:
Across The Universe
Spider-Man 3
Let’s Go To Prison
Hide And Seek
Spider-Man 2
Changing Lanes
Thirteen Days
The Cell
Requiem For A Dream

4/10

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

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

| | |

The Gangs Of New York Is A Lacking Tale Of Revenge And History

The Good: Daniel Day-Lewis, Moments of directing
The Bad: Howard Shore's soundtrack, Lack of use of quality actors, Romantic subplot, Idiot characters
The Basics: When gangs ruled the Five Points of New York City, Irish immigrants rise up against the Native New Yorkers in a dull tale of revenge and confused character types.


Most everyone says that Martin Scorsese is a genius and it's easy to see why when watching The Gangs Of New York. Scorsese has a great eye for movement and framing and using the camera to tell the story he wants to tell. He populates his film with talented actors and has a decent sense of pacing. Unfortunately, there is little that lives up to his potential genius in this film.

The Gangs Of New York begins with the slaughter of the Dead Rabbit gang in the Five Points in New York City (made even more distracting by the time frame of the massacre being given after the battle as opposed to before). This is not a big plot revelation as anyone who knows movies can figure that Liam Neeson's character will not survive given he is not billed near the top in the credits. Priest Vallon is killed and sixteen years later, his son, Amsterdam, comes looking for revenge. He quickly absorbs into the corrupt New York City run by Boss Tweed and Bill the Butcher, the man who killed Priest. Amsterdam gets closer to Bill until he is exposed and leads an Irish revolution against the "Native" New Yorkers and the Civil War draft changes everything.

First, the high points. Daniel Day-Lewis is phenomenal as Bill the Butcher. He brings William Cutting to life with a crooked grin, an expert sense of timing and a fury and ferocity that is unlike anything he has ever done on film before. There is no trace of his subtle and likable character from The Last Of The Mohicans, nor his dull, plodding character from The Age Of Innocence. Here, Day-Lewis performs and convinces the viewer he is someone and something totally different, a corrupt killer. In short, he does everything an actor is supposed to with smashing results.

Unfortunately, Day-Lewis is the exception to the rule. A lot of talented actors appear in The Gangs Of New York and are woefully neglected and/or ignored completely. Jim Broadbent's Tweed is decent, but remains almost entirely a peripheral character. The acting talents of John C. Reilly and Brendan Gleeson are almost entirely wasted in the bit roles they perform in this movie. Similarly, Liam Neeson's performance is too easy to neglect given that the entirety of his performance is in the first fifteen minutes of a 166 minute epic.

The real loser of The Gangs Of New York (outside the viewer who sits through the entire thing), is the story. We've seen revenge stories before. I happen to like a decent story of revenge and intrigue. This is not that. It has all of the same, old cliches. Parent is killed, disappears, returns years later with vengeance on their mind, gets close to killer, is discovered, the situation moves to a resolution. Even the confused, out of the subtext ending that might surprise some, seems canned and serves only to rob the film of a decent catharsis. Instead, the conflict between Amsterdam and the Butcher seems simply like it wasn't worth resolving. It's a lot of blood and violence to lead to a vengeance not worth the effort to resolve.

Moreover, the romantic subplot, and I use the term "romantic" loosely, in The Gangs Of New York between Amsterdam and Jenny is both entirely cliche and tacked on. There is an attempt to make triangle issues between Amsterdam, Jenny and the Butcher, but it feels like a cheap romantic tool used to add a woman to the mix. In short, Cameron Diaz's Jenny feels like a character added at the last moment so there could be some sort of romantic interest for Amsterdam and it fails to engage the viewer. Instead, we feel like we are being cheated because it distracts from the emotional intensity of the revenge plot. This is a rare instance where the film would have been fine without trying to balance the cast and it might have made a more powerful commentary to show the obsession of the vengeful son to not include anything as redemptive (or in this case, obscuring) as a romantic attachment.

Like Jenny, many of the characters are simply archetypes that fit into a rather generic role in the larger storytelling mythos. The problem is, we - as viewers - want actual characters and end up woefully disappointed by The Gangs Of New York. The let down here is that almost all of the characters turn out to be complete idiots in the end. For example, Brendan Gleeson's world-weary warrior Monk transforms in an instant from a battle-hardened soldier and mentor to Amsterdam into an idealistic moron who is willing to turn his back on the greatest villain he has ever known. And unfortunately, he is not the exception in this movie, he embodies the rule. All of the characters defy their better judgment and the common sense of the viewer by reversing their own wariness and anger.

My final problem with The Gangs Of New York was Howard Shore's derivative score for the movie. As a big fan of The Lord Of The Rings saga (reviewed here!), I was surprised while watching The Gangs Of New York to find many similarities in the soundtrack to the Trilogy, especially in the battle scenes. This disappointment was amplified when Howard Shore's name came up in the credits; the similarity was the result of Shore's sudden lack of musical imagination and it plagues the movie as Shore attempts to link (musically) gang-ridden New York City to Middle Earth. That's just wrong.

In short, The Gangs Of New York may have had potential and there are stylistic elements like directing and costume design that work in its favor, but the potential is never reached because the actors are underused or are playing characters with such contrast to sensibility that they are almost unwatchable and ultimately not relatable.

For other films with Jim Broadbent, be sure to check out my takes on:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Inkheart
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe
Nicholas Nickleby
Bridget Jones’s Diary
Smilla’s Sense Of Snow
Brazil

5/10

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

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

Man-made Disaster Movie: Titanic Is A Passionless Love Story That Sinks!

The Good: Good peripheral performances, A few moments of character
The Bad: Mediocre special effects, Predictable plots (not just the boat sinking), Contrived love story, Chemistry
The Basics: After several years, I gave Titanic a second chance, only to discover it was as bad as I remembered it being!


I'll admit it, I'm in the minority. I am not a fan of Titanic. I saw it years ago and was utterly unimpressed with virtually every aspect of it. So, when I sat down to rewatch the film as part of my desire to see every movie that won the Best Picture Oscar, I knew I would have to see Titanic again. I went into my latest viewing with my partner, who is a big fan of the film. Despite being initially biased against the movie based upon my prior experience, I figured if there was anything that could change my perception of the movie, it would be seeing it with my favorite person in the world and sharing her appreciation of the film.

It, alas, did not.

Titanic remains one of the most overrated films I've ever seen with two leads who have no genuine sexual chemistry. And while almost anyone who has ever heard the word "titanic" knows about the ship and what happened to it, the film by James Cameron is remarkably predictable in both plot and character aspects. For all the supposed greatness of the movie, this remains a long, tiresome drama that is a mild twist on a "man from the wrong side of the tracks gets the society girl" story. The disaster story is fleshed out with a romance that is more cliche than extraordinary. Ironically, for all those who hailed Revolutionary Road as a great reunion of stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, truth-be-told, their on-screen chemistry was often lacking.

When a team exploring the ruins of the R.M.S. Titanic recovers a safe with a drawing of a woman wearing a famed lost jewel, the Heart Of The Ocean, a woman comes forward to try to help the salvage team that is bent upon recovering such things. Rose, then, begins to tell crew the story of her time on the Titanic. Feeling trapped by her engagement to Cal, Rose boards the Titanic as part of society's elite. Moments before the ship is launched, Jack Dawson wins a ticket in a poker game to get him on the Titanic. But soon Rose feels utterly smothered by the expectations of Cal and society. She prepares to end her life by throwing herself off the front of the ship, but she is saved by Jack.

After several awkward incidents where Jack is reminded of his place in the social scheme, Rose becomes certain she does not want to associate with the social elite any longer. She abandons Cal (as best she can on the boat) and runs off with Jack. Jack, an artist, makes the portrait of Rose, which Cal finds in their room's safe. Cal's assistant plants the Heart Of The Ocean on Jack and arrests the young man. Shortly thereafter, the Titanic collides with its fateful iceberg and begins to sink. The young love Rose and Jack share becomes a nightmarish attempt to evacuate the sinking ship.

Titanic is superlative for its supporting cast. Kathy Bates portrays Molly, a society woman who does not care for conventions, brilliantly. She brings a vibrancy to scenes that are filled with stuffy characters acting boringly. Similarly, Victor Garber (Mr. Andrews, the designer of the ship) and Bernard Hill (Titanic's captain) play their roles with dignity that is enjoyable to watch and becomes the definition of professionalism and sacrifice.

But so many of the other roles are monolithic and cliche even. Cal and his henchman are villains of the most predictable and mundane order. Cal is clinging to Rose, not out of love, but a chauvinistic sense of possession. Outside being an artist, Jack is just a boy from the wrong side of the tracks with little else to distinguish him from similar characters. And Rose is very much a spoiled society girl who is unhappy with her lot in life. Her character is only fleshed out by her mother's insistence that she do whatever is necessary to snag Cal because Rose's wealthy father died carrying an inordinate amount of debt.

So, with characters who are more "types" than genuine characters, Titanic is a movie with a predictable plot that is trading almost exclusively on style instead of substance. As for the style, the film is an awkward mix of phenomenal and droll. The sets inside the Titanic are absolutely stunning, recreated in immaculate detail. The costumes, as well, are beautiful and appear period-correct. There is much to admire about the style of Titanic for much of the film.

Unfortunately, most of the shots of the ocean liner Titanic are sloppy, obvious CG efforts which have a poor physical relationship to the ocean setting and the sky. When the boat is moving and when the camera is posed at improbable angles - especially as the Titanic is going down - the effects are anything but special. The reality of footage of the actual Titanic on the ocean floor stands out compared to the computer-generated replica and when the reality and the CG are put side by side, it is just horrible. The epitome of bad special effects comes in the frozen bodies, several of which are obvious mannequins.

After a ridiculous amount of time, the movie ends and the viewer feels cheated, not so much because they knew the end from before the movie began, but because of the narrative structure. From the outset, viewers know that Rose survives, so the process of how she gets rescued is mildly interesting at best. But some of the other characters could have had surprising resolutions to their stories, but for them being mentioned early in the movie.

As well, while director James Cameron has an obvious appreciation for some physical details, he fails to capture certain essential realities. The darkness of the boat after the lights go out and sound as it would have traveled after the boar went down are less-realistically presented in Titanic.

On DVD, Titanic comes with the theatrical trailer and the ability to see the movie seamlessly in one take (the old VHS had two cassettes). There is a new two-disc version which offers Titanic fans more goodies, but I only had the one-disc version for review.

Ultimately, Titanic is another big budget special effects film of a tragedy which fleshes out the known tragedy with a lackluster character story that is more of a fairy tale than it is an original or inspired story.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project available by clicking here! Please check it out!]

For other works featuring David Warner, please check out my reviews of:
The Adventures Of Brisco County Jr.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles II: The Secret Of The Ooze
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Tron

4/10

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

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

| | |

Another Year The Best Picture Probably Wasn't: The Departed.

The Good: Decent acting, Moments where characters are interesting, DVD extras
The Bad: Pacing, Plot becomes tired, Does not seem all that fresh
The Basics: The Departed, another weak Best Picture win, is filled with gore, generic archetypal characters and performances that simply use the innate talent of the performers.


For years now, I've been taking cracks at the Emmy's, Oscars and Golden Globes for their obsessive need to present their awards annually. Indeed, my best argument comes in the form of the Best Picture awards given out by those shows that deal with films. The luck some films have is in being nominated in a year of mediocre films. The result is a collection of remarkably mixed "Best Picture" wins. Sure, The Departed might be the best film to hit theaters in 2006, but it's not a particularly great film, not one likely to endure as a true American classic. Yes, I'm arguing that the Academy ought to have held off a year until there was a Best Picture that was also a Great Picture, because for as good as The Departed is, it's no Casablanca.

Opening with lines that are intended to shock the viewer - Jack Nicholson's character opens the film with a voice over that includes racist epitaphs - The Departed relies more on setting than actual character to establish the world it embodies and while it is entertaining, it's not the masterpiece of all films that several people seem to want it to be.

Frank Costello is an Irish gangster in Boston who has the good fortune of having a long view and has never been effectively caught by the corrupt police in Massachusetts. The State and the Feds have a long view as well and they have worked hard to train an officer, Billy Costigan, to infiltrate the mob. He had pretty sterling connections considering his father was corrupt, so he is compelled by two chief detectives to take on additional training (like jail time) to establish an image that will effectively allow him to infiltrate Frank's gang to get the evidence needed to put Costello away for good.

The problem the Feds and the Massachusetts State troopers have is that Costello had essentially the same plan, raising Colin Sullivan to be a brilliant cop who is assigned to Costello's case. It does not take long before Costigan realizes there is a mole within the agency and Sullivan is forced to work extra hard to cover his tracks. In the process, Costigan and Sullivan share the same woman, Costello becomes sloppy and a killing spree breaks out that puts a real timetable on every person's agenda.

The Departed is a police drama that is deeply involved with undercover characters and the only character aspect that is genuinely interesting from the beginning to the end of the film is the identity-in-trust of Costigan. In order to have Costigan become an effective mole of Costello's organization, his identity must be erased and completely restructured. Costigan, Captain Queenan and undercover Sergeant Dignam are the only three people who know the truth or have access to it. So on a character level, the viewer knows that Costigan is safe and can get out once his assignment is over, so long as either Queenan or Dignam is alive and in a position to help him.

Thus, The Departed only becomes truly interesting when those three characters are placed in real jeopardy. Fortunately, the script is just smart enough to recall this and keep Sullivan smart enough to rearrange the proverbial pieces on the board to keep those three essential characters off balance with is machinations. When Queenan, for example, is menaced, the viewer cares because we understand the real threat is to the strung-out Costigan.

That said, most of the characters are either unlikable (like Costello) or more archetypes than actualized characters. The female characters - notably police psychologist Madolyn Madden - are generally flat and serve to advance the fairly male-dominated plot line. Madden is as corrupt and easy to manipulate as all of the men and the suggestion in her character that because she is open to lying to her boyfriend (Sullivan) that she wants to be lied to is particularly disturbing. Indeed, the problem with the Sullivan/Madden relationship is that it is built on lies that come far too easily for both characters and leave the viewer wondering what truly motivates the pair to be together other than simple physical lust. At the end of the day, though, the role is inconsequential; Madden is mostly used as a tool to expose more plot points and continue to paint Sullivan and Costigan. In other words, she never pops as a character who is distinct in her own right and does not seem to have a life or identity outside serving the basic plot of the main story.

And for as edgy as the film is supposed to be, so much of it feels like it has been done before. The Departed hinges on a series of twists and turns and by the time the viewer gets to a certain point in the film, the twists become predictable and we accept that the good guys might not win the day. The bloodbath that ensues over the turf war between the law and the mob becomes an almost predictable series of strikes and counterstrikes. There comes a point in the film that the bodies start piling up and I began to call just who would be killed off next. I got them all right. It's pretty sad when a supposed thriller is not quite engaging enough to keep us within the film long enough to finish its story. But I found myself bored with the chase and the sequence of reversals which allowed me to start commenting on the work as I watched it. That's never a good thing.

And perhaps the most shocking element of characterization - the use of racist terms and the boatload of swearing - has been done before. The Departed thinks it's new to characterize bad people by illustrating their unacceptable social behavior with their language. Well, Costello is pretty bad from the outset without throwing around "nigger" and every other word in the book. And by the end of the film, who is good and who is less than based on the number of shots fired is pretty clear.

The Departed is also fairly graphic with the violence and gore. Those who complain about such things as the alien blowing out the head of a convict with its inner jaw in Alien 3 will be hard pressed to say that the gore in this film is not more significant. After all, here we see multiple people shot - including right in the face with big gory splatters behind them -, thrown off buildings, and dying in other painful ways. And we see it happen on screen through the magic of special effects and make-up and the difference between it being done by alien life forms and humans should be more horrific in this context. Yet, most of the reviewers praised The Departed and found the gore in films like Alien 3 to be over-the-top. I suppose times change. Or Martin Scorsese gets a freebie for being Martin Scorsese. I'm becoming convinced that certain directors are able to get away with more based on the virtue of being famous and well-respected. In The Departed, Scorsese pushes the limits of violence and gore with a story that is violent at its core, but that could have been classier with its presentation of death.

In other words, Scorsese illustrates death with little poetry and quite a bit more realism than most directors would choose to. But even Scorsese does not go the whole distance. Like so many, he seems terrified of showing the true impact of firearm deaths. It's one thing to blow away a character on screen and illustrate the back of their head splattering against the wall; it's entirely another to make the front of that same face unrecognizable with that blast or illustrate what happens to the body when it hits the ground (yea collapsing skull!). My point here is that the arguments for realism fall short with the follow-through. Scorsese, like so many directors, tries to make killing artistic and entertaining and while he ratchets up the gore as a result, it cannot be said it's purely for realism's sake. Of course, in order to show a truly realistic wasting of a human with a shot to the face, the MPAA would probably only pass the film with an "R" with one such incident.

That said, the place where the film deserved to excel was in the casting. I love great actors, but in the case of The Departed, the casting makes the movie more than the acting does. Jack Nicholson, Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg are not playing characters that are a real stretch for them. Indeed, some of the best actors in the film are playing well within a niche we have seen them in before. One of my favorites, Martin Sheen, who plays Captain Queenan, is playing the role essentially identically to his bit role in Bobby. In other words, we've seen the performance before and with most of the other principle characters, it's a similar thing.

The big exception is Leonardo DiCaprio as Costigan. DiCaprio caught my eye last year in Blood Diamond and he was great in that role. It was different for him and he used the opportunity to stretch as an actor. In that part, DiCaprio plays more of a rogue and the challenge for him in The Departed is to play a straight-laced man as a rogue and his performance lives up. He is easily the shining star of The Departed and he was robbed for an acting award for either this or Blood Diamond that year. As unlikely as it might be, DiCaprio becomes completely convincing as a man on the right side of the law working on the wrong side of it. He is able to embody a ruthless quality through much of the film, but play the scenes where that is wearing on his character with an essential humanity that rings true. It is possibly his best performance to date.

And it is that that finally pushed the film up to a territory where I felt I could recommend it. The Departed is a long film that feels long (it's 151 minutes) and it has more than the requisite twists and turns to keep the average film viewer entertained. But for those looking for something truly groundbreaking or sophisticated, this didn't add up. In other words, it's fine entertainment, but it's not truly more than that. I suppose I want my Best Pictures to be more than just entertaining.

The DVD has a commentary track and a bonus disc filled with featurettes, none of which excited me enough to more enthusiastically recommend the film.

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

For other works featuring police as primary characters, please check out my reviews of:
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Blade: Trinity
L.A. Confidential


5/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Martin Scorsese Directs Horror Ho-Hum Which Still Works With Shutter Island!

The Good: Actually scary, Decent direction, Cool character development, Good supporting performances.
The Bad: Some truly hammy acting from DiCaprio, Overbearing soundtrack, Serious pacing issues.
The Basics: Despite some campy moments, Martin Scorsese manages to direct a horror film which is appropriately deep and unsettling with Shutter Island!


I wonder if, when Martin Scorsese learned his film Shutter Island was being pushed back from October (2009) to February 2010, he thought, “Oh, crap.” February is a notoriously bad month for films. It’s pretty much the dumping ground for bad films, the way late-August/early-September is. In that case, movies that couldn’t quite perform during Summer Blockbuster Season are dumped into the marketplace as the studios gear up toward the push for the winter movies and Oscar Pandering Season. In the case of February, cinephiles who are burnt out from Oscar Pandering Season watch a lot of schlock while the Oscar votes are tabulated and the new year of movies actually begins with March’s attempt to make new year blockbusters. Scorsese, having been around the movie business for many years, had to have known he was being bumped to the theatrical equivalent of a Friday night prime time timeslot. Shutter Island opens during a particularly dismal time of the movie year.

So, I was unprepared for how good it was. In fact, having seen the preview trailers, I was entirely unenthusiastic about the screening I attended and I went with a sense of trepidation and the feeling that I was wasting my time and gas money. It’s always nice when I can admit I’m wrong. Shutter Island is dark, moody and despite an overbearing soundtrack and problematic performance bits by Leonardo DiCaprio, the psychological horror shakes things up in a moody and wonderful way. The result is a movie which is actually scary and is difficult to watch. As always under such circumstances, it is worth noting that I have not read the novel upon which this was based, so this is a very pure review of the film alone.

Teddy Daniels and Chuck are U.S. Marshals who are sent to Ashecliffe Hospital For The Criminally Insane on the mysterious Shutter Island when one of the inmates, a murderer named Rachel, goes missing. Baffled at how an inmate might disappear without a trace, the Marshals are met with hostility by the doctors and workers on the island as they join the search for the dangerous fugitive. But the mystery compounds for the investigators when they turn up no clues, except for a note which implies that there might be more inmates in the facility than there are on record. When the investigation is halted because of a hurricane on the coast, Teddy and Chuck are cut off from the mainland and trapped on Shutter Island.

At that point, Teddy begins to hallucinate and the hospital administrator, Dr. Cawley, tips his hand in insinuating that understanding the minds of the killers is the best way to cure them. The mystery rapidly compounds when Teddy’s reality becomes unsettled and the mystery he was sent to investigate may not be the true reason he is at the facility. Distancing himself from Chuck, haunted by memories of liberating a concentration camp and the death of his wife, Teddy flees the facility and searches for answers outside the hospital.

Shutter Island quickly becomes a “haunted house” type horror story and the house is both the physical boundaries of Ashecliffe which is cut off from the rest of the world and the limits of Teddy’s mind. Teddy’s hallucinations are psychologically significant and terrifying and while his backstory is mentioned, seeing the manifestations of his past as he becomes more twisted by his surroundings is effectively frightening and compelling. And while Shutter Island is racked with the “haunted house” conceits of things in the dark jumping out and location-based jumpy moments, what is most impressive about Shutter Island is that there is a decent amount of character work in it. This is essentially a combination of a “mess with reality” story and a “haunted house” story.

Teddy arrives at Ashecliffe having lost his wife and having witnessed atrocities in World War II, so he arrives on-screen as something between a gumshoe and a worldly man who is looking to keep order in the world. From the moment he is compelled to surrender his sidearm, he becomes unsettled; he is not a man who likes giving up control and it quickly becomes apparent that Cawley, Dr. Naehring, and the hospital warden are all about maintaining control. So, Teddy becomes a likable protagonist and while he becomes unsettled rather early on, the film remains watchable because it unfolds in a way that is both stylish and compelling. Despite never having read the book, the film feels like it is moving toward a science fiction-type reversal at the end and there is one, but writers Laeta Kalogridis and Dennis Lehane do a decent job of laying the clues before the viewer so seasoned cinephiles will see it coming.

What makes it worthwhile is the journey in this case. While the film is dreadfully slow in parts, it has a decent “jump” factor. It has been some time since a thriller actually got my heart pumping, but Shutter Island made me jump and flinch, which are both excellent traits for a movie like this. Martin Scorsese does a good job of using shadows both to hide and reveal and the way he keeps the cameras close to ceilings during many of the chase scenes gives the entire place a very claustrophobic feel. The sense of being trapped plays well on the big screen and helps enhance what might be a very average horror movie otherwise.

What does not work so well is the soundtrack and some of DiCaprio’s acting. While Sir Ben Kingsley manages to never go over-the-top with his performance – letting his lines drip occasionally with menace, but never becoming b-rate – and Max von Sydow understates to make Dr. Naehring unsettling, DiCaprio is outright hammy with his fake accent (which slips several times in the movie) and stare which seems to want to scream “I’m intense,” but comes across as “Look at my eyes, stop listening to my voice!” DiCaprio does not seem to have a physical presence to make the investigative portion of his character’s role seem plausible. As well, the soundtrack is overbearing and telegraphs far too many of the moments when the viewer is intended to jump, gasp or feel grossed out.

Barring that, Shutter Island works and it does so in a way that has enough substance so those who are not fans of horror movies are likely to enjoy the movie. Still, it’s not for the weak of heart and it’s not for those who can’t handle a twist.  Now on DVD and Blu-Ray, Shutter Island has a commentary track, movie previews and a few other goodies.

For other films featuring Leonardo DiCaprio, please check out Inception!

7/10

For more film reviews, please check out my index page!

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

Christopher Nolan Brings Summer Audiences Something To Be Excited About With Inception, A Perfect Film!

The Good: Great visuals, Wonderful acting, Cool plot, Interesting characters.
The Bad: None that I could find!
The Basics: Another masterwork by writer/director Christopher Nolan, "Inception" is a ridiculously smart, confusing and visually exceptional psychological drama worth seeing!

What do you do when you're both hailed as a creative genius and are put in charge of one of the most lucrative superhero franchises of the decade? At some point, you stop playing in other people's universes and you go out and create your own. That seems to be the lesson from Christopher Nolan with Inception. The director, who had a knockout debut with Memento and dominated Summer Blockbuster Season two years ago with The Dark Knight is here to stun audiences once again with Inception. And while most reviews will undoubtedly gush almost exclusively about the special effects, what makes Inception so special is that it is well-written, has amazing performances by Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Cillian Murphy and Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

Inception is the opportunity all of us who missed seeing Dark City in the theaters have been waiting for ever since, though this tense drama tries to keep far more grounded in the realistic than the fantastic world of the Alex Proyas work. While Inception has been billed by Warner Brothers as a science fiction, outside the initial premise, Inception is far more a dramatic thriller than anything truly science fiction-oriented. In fact, this usurps the crime heist genre and helps to create a surprisingly psychologically-driven story.

Using technology developed by a mentor of his, Dom Cobb is the ultimate operative in the world of industrial espionage. He enters the dreams of those he needs information from their subconscious mind. Unfortunately for him, his career is on the slide and he has been hunted in the real world for what are perceived as his failures at subconscious security. Cobb is brought a mission that will not only pay him and his team well, but will offer him the chance to return home to his children. As Robert Fischer's health wanes, he looks to turn his massive corporation over to his son, Robert Fischer, Jr. Cobb is sent to implant a thought into the mind of the son, instead of steal one, an act of inception. If Cobb and his team can get him to split his company up, their employer will see great gains.

After training and preparation, Cobb, Ariadne, Arthur and Eams enter Fischer's dream to attempt inception. But once there, Ariadne's world begins to take some frightening turns and Cobb and his team are hunted by a figure who should not be allowed to influence them. As the team descends into dreams within dreams, they must respond to the changing landscape of Fischer's mind, an act severely complicated by gunplay and agents of Fischer's mind hunting the team!

Inception, as one might expect from the director of Memento is psychologically smart and revealing of a much deeper series of concepts than the simple heist film or action-adventure flick is usually capable of. Cobb is likable and in his scenes with Miles, his mentor, he is vulnerable and honest. He is at his most human and despite all that came before and all that comes after, it is hard not to see him as a family man who is trying to do right by his children. Also like Christopher Nolan's cinematic rendition of Bruce Wayne, Cobb has his damage and Nolan is an expert at expressing that throughout the film. In fact, Nolan gets a performance out of Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays Cobb, that no other director seems able to get. The performance is nuanced and DiCaprio sheds his stony exterior at key moments to flinch and look weakened in his eyes, which makes the character feel like he is that much more motivated by circumstances that have left him damaged.

Smartly, Nolan does not hinge everything on Cobb, who has moments of ruthless efficiency that make it hard to sympathize with his plight in the dreamworld. Instead, he adds Ariadne as emotional ballast and Arthur, who does not simply crack wise, but does provide several of the film's best moments of catharsis for the audience. Ariadne (no points off for Nolan, who wrote Inception as well as directed it, who gives a character a classic name that is actually a clever allusion) is almost instantly empathetic and her relationship with both Miles and Cobb gives her a perspective that the audience comes to appreciate as the movie continues.

Ellen Page and Joseph Gordon-Levitt do great jobs as Ariadne and Arthur, who join Nolan regulars Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy. Gordon-Levitt has been hailed by many for his recent works (all of which I have seemed to miss), but he easily overcomes the mental image one might have of him from Third Rock From The Sun. In Inception, he is dry and surprisingly commanding as Arthur. Similarly, as Ariadne, Ellen Page has the choice opportunity to do something for a character other than look adorable or open her mouth and bug out her eyes in shock. As Ariadne, Page holds her own against the physical heavies of Inception by giving a performance that makes her character seem blisteringly intelligent, imaginative and emotionally expressive. This is one of Page's best roles and it is truly unlike anything she has ever done before on screen.

Like all of the best psychologically-driven films and thrillers, there are twists to be had and there is something the director wants to say about the human condition. Christopher Nolan has a twist and it's a decent one in Inception, but much more important is what Nolan wants to say about the human condition. If Batman Begins was a film about fear and The Dark Knight was about the nature of heroism in a world where order and chaos are at severe odds, Inception is an intriguing mix of explorations on greed and guilt. Ultimately, Cobb and his team have motivations that are less than pure. While Ariadne's role is occasionally one which allows her to feel an academic attachment to her actions, Cobb, Eames and Arthur are unable to live in such denial. They are calculating men who place the law on the backburner for their own personal ambitions and reputations. Nolan's visually-powerful examples of the lengths they go to for greed is one of the most poignant statements of the movie.

But what is equally poignant is the element of guilt and loss. While Ariadne tries to assuage Cobb's sense of self-incrimination in the death of his wife, Nolan smartly does not let Cobb off so easily. His loss runs deep and it plays into the twists and turns of the dreamworld he and his team find themselves in. As the dreamscape becomes more - for lack of a better term - trippy and dangerous, it is unsurprising that Cobb's own issues motivate some of the chaos.

That, as well as unraveling the turns in plot and character, is where Inception becomes both incredibly fun and exceptionally engaging to watch. Traveling through the dreams and navigating the mind is something that Nolan and his production team make incredible.  Inception does look awesome and with the soundtrack, Inception is as much a mood piece as it is a psychological thriller. But those looking for a great summer movie need not worry; it entertains exceptionally well as it unfolds.

Ultimately, Christopher Nolan creates a movie for Summer Blockbuster season that will keep viewers thinking well into Oscar Pandering Season. Should the Academy recall this gem, this might well be Nolan's best chance for the Best Picture Oscar he has deserved. Visually, it is stunning. Plotwise, it feels fresh even when there are conceits fans of the psychological thriller are likely to see coming. But even more than all that, Nolan has a brilliant film for Summer Blockbuster Season which is almost impossible to appreciate with only a single viewing. Seeing is a second time in IMAX was worth the money.  Inception is a movie which works on a literal and a metaphorical level almost impossible to capture the full depth of on a single viewing.

Wanting, eagerly awaiting, seeing it again, is the easy mark of a perfect film and Christopher Nolan has all the trappings of a blockbuster and a perfect film with Inception.

For other films with Leonardo DiCaprio, please check out my reviews of:
Shutter Island
The Departed
Titanic

10/10

For more movie reviews, please check out my index page!

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