Too Soon? World Trade Center Seems Self-Indulgent

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting characters, Good direction
The Bad: Predictable plot, Not daring enough, Mood too light, Some flat performances
The Basics: Created too soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks, World Trade Center is not entertaining, dramatic or edgy enough to keep viewers who lived through the day interested or engaged.


Lately, I feel like I'm writing a lot of disclaimers to my reviews to prevent me from being lynched by my readers. I figured, when I sat down to watch World Trade Center it would be a good opportunity to write a safe, puff review that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Well, my hopes were pretty much shattered when I didn't like the movie and I was resigned to writing another extensive disclaimer in one of my movie reviews. Sigh.

Port Authority cops John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno are working on the morning of September 11, 2001 when a plane hits one of the towers of the World Trade Center. They rush in to aid the evacuation of one of the towers and get trapped underneath the concourse between the two buildings. As they wait to be rescued or die beneath the rubble, their families fret and respond to the attacks on New York City, the Pentagon and the way of life in the United States of America.

World Trade Center is directed by Oliver Stone, who directed U Turn (reviewed here!) which I recently saw. Fortunately, for the viewer, Stone does not subject the viewer to his inane directoral style of that earlier movie. Instead of cheap camera movements and an annoying style, Stone tells a remarkably straightforward story with his direction on this movie.

The problem is, World Trade Center comes too soon and Stone is not daring enough as a director to shock the audience. Put simply, because the story is based on actual events, the turnout of the movie is never in serious doubt. The story lacks a real sense of jeopardy because in order to accept that this is based on actual events, there has to be someone left alive to tell the story. In short, there was not a moment of the film that I did not believe that John and Will were going to survive.

I have lived in New York State all my life and I lived through the events of September 11, 2001. Been there, done that. We get what happened and it's wonderful to tell a nice, heroic story about the day. The problem, in addition to the lack of jeopardy, comes in the story being told by screenwriter Andrea Berloff. Berloff abandons the story from the perspective of the McLoughlin's and Jimeno's long enough to show people reacting to the first tower being hit. Why, then, do Berloff and Stone not show it happening?

Throughout the film, the Port Authority cops are in doubt as to the second tower being hit, which seems odd because the second plane hit approximately fifteen minutes after the first and by the time most networks had visuals of the first tower on fire, the second plane appeared and hit the other tower. That that fact remains in doubt for so very long seems odd, even if it was a part of these two cop's reality.

Anyway, as people who lived through these events, it seems strange not to show at least the first hit to clearly establish the magnitude of what is happening. But that's the easy disappointment of World Trade Center as a movie. The other disappointment is one that it's hard to articulate given the emotions of the event. It's also one that we, as viewers, knew we would not be seeing.

In short, great drama is made from watching the human struggle. We watch movies about The Alamo not because we think the Texans are going to win, but because they put up a good fight. There is little more dramatic than heroes falling. It's not funny, for events that are recent it's not entertaining, but it's human to root for the struggle, if not the outcome. In simple terms in this case, World Trade Center fails in its drama because Stone created a film too soon to the event that is based on the tale of survivors and is not likely to be a shocker. It's too soon to send people to a movie where those trapped underground give a valiant fight for survival but perish hours before help arrives. Stone is just not going to make that film and the viewer knows it.

Lacking the essential drama of whether or not the two protagonists trapped underground will survive, the movie turns to the families who are waiting to learn their fate. This involves a lot of people acting surprised, shocked and . . . waiting. The dramatic tension that is supposed to be added by John's son Steven bugging his mom to do something comes across as more annoying than anything else.

Lead actors Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena do fine as John and Will, though they are not given much to work with. Most of their scenes involve them talking in the dark with no ability to express themselves through body language. Cage, especially, works his voice to create stress and the idea that his condition is deteriorating. Because most of their scenes are filmed in the dark, it's hard to say how Cage and Pena perform using facial expressions.

On the other front, Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Will's wife quite well. Her struggle is compelling and interesting. As she waits to find out if Will is alive, she struggles over the fact that she has to consider raising her unborn baby on her own. She plays the role with an intriguing mix of strength and raw emotionalism that captures the human condition in this type of conflict perfectly.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of Maria Bello, who played Donna, John's wife. Bello is flat and listless. Her performance adds nothing to make the viewer empathize with her. Instead, on John's side of the conflict, none of the characters pop. None of the performances there stand out as interesting or well-presented. So, while I felt for John being trapped under the rubble, it was hard to see what he was fighting for based on the performances in this film.

As well, his half of the story relies heavily on flashbacks. As John lays dying, he occasionally recalls a moment with him and his wife. Strangely, so does his wife. This becomes problematic because it guts the menace of the moment. Trapped under the rubble, it in some ways becomes less important if John (the character in the movie, NOT the actual guy who was trapped under the rubble!) survives or not if he has the ability to escape into his mind and revisit some past wonderful moment. In short, to borrow from the earlier notes of heroism, there's nothing terribly dramatic about dying with a smile on your face because despite the hell you went through buried alive, your last moments were consumed with escaping into the best memories of your life.

The movie's self-indulgent nature comes to a peak at the end of the film and it's troublesome enough to be worth mentioning. John McLoughlin has a voice-over at the end of the movie (voice by Cage, of course) which might well be from his account, but seems terribly out of place in this movie. John says, about September 11th, something to the effect of "A lot of people saw evil that day, but I saw something good." Indeed, the tagline for the film is: "The World Saw Evil That Day. Two Men Saw Something Else." After sitting through two hours of this movie, this just feels cheap. McLoughlin didn't see anything good in the movie, he was trapped under rubble for 22 hours! He didn't see much of anything. And while that might be a noble sentiment, it doesn't fit this film.

Perhaps should this type film be attempted again, a far more powerful presentation - as opposed to alternating between John and Will, their families and the Marine who comes to find them - sticking with just the survivors trapped underground would create something far more dramatic, difficult and real. I might actually watch that movie a second time, if it were done well.

In short, John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno survived something truly terrible, while attempting something heroic. Their story is a great tale of survival and keeping cool under pressure. This movie, however, is not. It's certainly not entertaining.

For other works with Donna Murphy, please check out my reviews of:
Tangled
The Fountain
Spider-Man 2
Star Trek: Insurrection

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for a comprehensive listing!

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

A Bad Day To Gamble It All In Vegas: The Cooler

The Good: Acting, Mood (if you can handle a depressing tone)
The Bad: Horrible characters, Predictable plot and twists, and Dismal pacing
The Basics: When a casino bad luck charm falls in love, he puts himself in jeopardy with the evil casino owner.


I didn't read much about The Cooler before I got it out. The truth is, it had William H. Macy and he has a pretty good track record with me as far as satisfying me with his performances in movies. Thus, I got out The Cooler and prepared myself to enjoy it. Man, I wish I could.

Bernie is a man, hired by a Las vegas casino because he has horrible luck. He is what is called a "cooler," a man with contagious bad luck who simply approaches those who have fortune riding their rolls and cards and their luck will turn bad and they will lose all sorts of money. These are Bernie's last days as working as a cooler for Shelly, the owner of the casino. Shelly sees losing Bernie as losing an important asset to his business. Unfortunately for Shelly, Bernie is already lost to him as he has fallen in love with Natalie, who grows to love him. Bernie's luck changes and his ability to "cool" the tables disappears, causing Shelly to get angry. And Shelly's anger is not to be trifled with, a fact no one can deny as Shelly is on edge over "investors" who want to change the face and substance of his casino.

Bernie's last days as a cooler are violent, filled with sex and heartbreak. Bernie is, despite his knowledge of the etymology of the phrase, an easy mark. He wants to see the best in people, including his no-good son, Mikey and his coked up girlfriend. Shelly, despite his rage and selfish manipulations is able to see people as they are and he feels threatened by his loss of power within his casino.

What works is the acting. Hands down, the best thing about the movie is the acting. Alec Baldwin is impressive as Shelly. Given his usually bright public persona, the darkness he portrays in The Cooler is truly astonishing and evidence to any nay-sayer that he can act exceptionally well. Baldwin's anger plays off the chill logic presented by the words, tones and body language of Ron Livingston. Livingston is more than just someone cast for good looks; its his whole casual and quietly deadly demeanor that keep many of the scenes in the movie truly frightening.

Mario Bello shines as Natalie. Despite the "plot twist" involving her character that we, the viewer, see a mile away, Bello is not to blame for any of the character's problems. She plays Natalie with a sense of jaded purpose and loss of heart that makes her character seem very real and the choices she makes very understandable. She has an excellent sense of timing, especially with quiet pauses, that makes her character seem realistically uncertain and coerced and makes us immediately empathize with her character.

William H. Macy is, as so often in the movies he is in, the one to watch in The Cooler. He plays the role of the loser and hustler with such cool, calm reserve that he makes us believe Bernie could be a force of bad luck. Macy breathes life into a character that it could make us absolutely miserable to watch. From the way he eyes his son with love to the way he reaches out for Natalie, Bernie has such subtle, real looks and emotions in his body language created by Macy that it's easy to see why he was cast for the role. No one else could pull it off like he does.

The problem is, there's not a single decent character in the entire movie. All the while one might want to empathize with Bernie and celebrate the love he has found, we must keep in mind that this is a guy who by profession helps another bad man to rob a bunch of desperate gamblers. Bernie, while easily the most sympathetic character, is still a pretty crappy human being at the end of the day as he uses his "power" to take advantage of his fellow human being.

There are a lot of comparisons that could be drawn between Shelly, who consciously manipulates circumstances and individuals, and Bernie, who simply by his nature causes those around him to suffer. At the end of the day, though, Bernie is probably the lesser of the two evils as he is largely a tool used by Shelly. Shelly is the real villain and he's a villain who is impossible to like, to empathize with. Who cares that Larry (Livingston's developer character) is trying to take the casino away from him, stepping on his territory? He's a bad man getting pushed aside by another bad man who wants change.

So, the short of it is that all of the characters are various shades of evil and they spend the entire movie screwing each other over. Royally. Shelly uses violence and anger, Bernie uses his innate bad luck, Natalie uses her sexuality and her willingness to be used by Shelly. These are not nice people we're watching for 100 minutes.

The problem is these are bad people doing bad things over five days. The mood of the movie stretches out their misery and the angst beyond tolerable or entertaining levels. We are watching people suffer in this movie and it doesn't take long before that becomes less entertaining and more miserable. It becomes unpleasant to watch these unpleasant people. You can have movies or television shows where bad people are doing bad things (The Usual Suspects, reviewed here, comes immediately to mind), but often it has to be fast paced. We can't become trapped in how miserable they are as people. Even Magnolia (reviewed here), where many of the characters are living out a miserable night, the pace is kept up and the interweaving of storylines keeps the viewer engaged. Here, we simply become mired in the misery of these lost souls.

I wanted to like this movie. I like other casino movies, like Hard Eight (reviewed here!) and that's no speedfest on the eyes. But it has a decent mood and pace. The Cooler is all about bad people doing bad things until the viewer feels dirty and depressed. Even the fine acting does not make it worth that.

For other works with Ron Livingston, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Going The Distance
The Time Traveler’s Wife
Adaptation.
Office Space

5.5/10

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.
| | |

Cycles We Pass On, Cycles We Cannot Escape Are Embodied In A History Of Violence

The Good: Excellent characters and development, Good acting, Engaging story, Good direction
The Bad: Moments of cliche
The Basics: When a decent man is put in a situation that involves violence in self-defense, his life begins to spiral out of control.


The first thing to impress me about A History Of Violence was the relative intelligence of the characters. The police aren't portrayed as idiots, the women aren't portrayed as weak and helpless, and the protagonist seems to realize the severity of his actions. For one reason or another, I have managed to watch a lot of disappointing movies and television lately. Fortunately, A History Of Violence bucked that trend and offered me a solidly entertaining diversion that is still making me think.

While Tom Stall enjoys life and love with his wife and two children, the rest of the world does what it is doing. Killers come and go and at school, Tom's son Jack finds himself talking his way out of a fight with a bully. Unfortunately for Tom, one night at closing at his diner two killers enter and menace his customers. Tom defends the patrons and the waitress there and in the process dispatches the two killers.

Unfortunately for Tom, this sets off a series of events that cause his life and the life of his family members to unravel. A menacing stranger, Fogarty, comes to town and calls Tom by another name, which Tom denies. Even after the police investigate Fogarty and find out his ties to organized crime and Edie (Tom's wife) gets a restraining order, Fogarty menaces Tom and his family. Jack gets into a fight in school, Fogarty makes his play and Tom's life is turned upside down.

What works exceptionally well in A History Of Violence are the characters. Tom Stall does not want to glorify violence and his anger at his son for getting into a fight at school seems very genuine. Tom seems educated, articulate and deliberately pacifistic, which are traits that are effectively shared with his son, Jack.

The transformation that occurs after the initial act of desperate heroism is telling and very real. A History Of Violence plays out the "is he or isn't he" aspect of Tom's nature quite effectively for a significant amount of time and I think it would be a shame to ruin that in this review. However, it is fair to say that A History Of Violence is all about exploring the consequences of aggression and rage. Tom's playful attitude with his wife is wonderfully sundered once the door to violence is opened. When Jack makes an angry crack about how the family deals with problems, Tom's reaction is very natural given line that he has crossed.

This is a family that has not solved problems with violence, so when one member of the family commits an act of violence - even in self-defense and the defense of others - the family suffers. It's refreshing to see a young person (Jack, in this case) freak out when he sees his mother running around with a shotgun. In school, Jack has a wonderful exchange with a girl about how scary it is for Tom to have killed two people.

That level of realism follows throughout the movie. In the diner scene when Tom is called upon to save the patrons, he does not walk away unscathed; one of the two career criminals knifes him. That played out as very real. And when Tom is called another name repeatedly by Fogarty, even though he is a local celebrity, Sheriff Sam starts asking Tom questions. That level of detail and intelligence was remarkably refreshing and real.

And Edie is wonderful in how she knows Tom. She acts independently of him when Tom is threatened and that seems both loving and realistic. She's intelligent and she can see what has happened when the door to violence is opened. Unfortunately, her intelligence lapses at one of the dumbest times in the movie; after her family is menaced, she turns her back on her very young daughter while out in the mall. That did not "read" right at all.

Similarly, there are scenes near the climax of the movie featuring hard core criminals who are ruthless that lack the realism and tone of the rest of the movie. It's a shame, too, because in order to resolve the film, the writers and director sacrifice the realism of the rest of the piece. It goes back to the old question from Star Wars: A New Hope; "How does the Empire maintain control when the stormtroopers can't seem to hit anyone they shoot at?"

Where the movie ends, though, makes sense on a character level and it is a thoroughly appropriate ending (though had it ended a few minutes earlier with a very different character resolution, I would have been equally satisfied). It's a powerful movie with an excellent exploration of the way violence escalates, even when it begins benignly.

Part of what makes the movie work so well is the acting. It's always a pleasure for me to see Stephen McHattie getting work and having him open A History Of Violence is both wonderful and effectively creepy. Ashton Holmes does an excellent job as Jack. He is articulate and funny and he plays disarming remarkably well when his character is bullied.

Maria Bello is equally good as Edie. She plays loving, angry, protective and curious as appropriate wonderfully. She is able to modulate between moods with the flicker of her eyes and a subtle change in her glance. She emotes very well and helps act as a very human foil to Tom. Her last appearance in the movie is riveting.

It is Viggo Mortensen who carries much of the movie with his acting. Mortensen is good at modulating between the mild mannered man he portrays with a sense of permanence and realism and the man who engages his protective instinct. Mortensen plays instinctual very well, making his ability to react very real. He plays Tom with great humanity.

This was the first movie directed by David Cronenberg that I have seen (I saw him act on "Alias") and I have to say I was impressed. I was equally impressed on the DVD to see that the deleted scene, which was a dream sequence, was deleted because he felt it did not fit (I agree). Also, he argued against a U.S. and International DVD release as the international version simply had two shots that had a little more blood and an enhanced sound effect. I respect Cronenberg's directoral choices in this movie.

A History Of Violence, as the title suggests, is not for everyone. Squeamish about blood and sex? This movie is not for you. The sex is not gratuitous and the differences in the ways it happens throughout the movie are very telling. And effective. I remain impressed by A History Of Violence and I recommend it for anyone who wants a decent character exploration on violence and its effect on a family.

For other stories where revenge is an important aspect, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Payback
The Last House On The Left
Unforgiven

8/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Witty Satire Of P.C. And Nicotine, Thank You For Smoking!

The Good: Funny, Good characters, Decent acting, Entertaining
The Bad: Plot gets fairly stale quickly, Pacing
The Basics: While Nick Naylor gallivants around the U.S. justifying the continued existence of cigarettes, he finds himself targeted by reporters, Congress and a hitman.


I feel like I have been watching a lot of documentaries lately, but with my latest viewing, Thank You For Smoking, I rationally know I did not. It's certainly a mocumentary, but it is written so real and with such clever attention to detail that it is almost impossible not to believe that it represents an expose into the world of Big Tobacco.

While Nick Naylor works through the morally ambiguous place life has left him as the voice of the tobacco industry, he finds himself kept from his son and fairly alone in the world. Naylor continues to view representing Big Tobacco as a job that is essentially about debating and he classifies himself as a king of debate. When the U.S. Senate starts a cry for even stronger warning labels on cigarettes, Naylor finds himself targeted by a reporter, a senator and an assassin. As his life spins out of control, his relationship with his son begins to become a priority and he begins to seek a new direction.

Sort of.

More than the tobacco industry, what Thank You For Smoking is truly about is the lengths our society goes to to cater to big business at the expense of human health. What the movie is truly about is freedom and choice vs. political correctness. It's an interesting argument and the movie is very funny.

Unfortunately, it's something the viewer tires from quickly. The pacing of the movie is seriously off. There are tracks of the movie that are slow and ponderous and seem to go nowhere, not even to building mood. Instead, the movie drifts between frenetic scenes as Nick Naylor goes from talking fast to driving slow. His relationships fade in and out throughout the movie at rather plot convenient times. So, for about five minutes his relationship with Heather - the reporter - is incredibly important. Then, she disappears from the movie for a significant chunk of time, pops up for two minutes, disappears until the end.

I can live with movies that have moments where nothing happens; in fact, on The West Wing (reviewed here!), one of the things that impresses me most is the amount of time devoted to reaction shots. The camera stays on characters at times long after the character they are speaking to has left the room. In Thank You For Smoking, there are long interstitial passages where we aren't learning more about the character or anything, the camera is just sitting waiting for action to happen.

Outside that, Thank You For Smoking works. It's funny and it's very intelligently written. Jason Reitman, who wrote and directed the film Thank You For Smoking has a great sense of comic timing. When Nick Naylor is talking spin, Reitman wisely keeps him smiling and moving. Some of the most dynamic moments occur when the only thing moving is Naylor's mouth and that takes some serious talent.

The talent that is evident from the first moments of the movie is in the casting. This is an accomplished and exceptional cast and it's clear that Reitman knows how to use them. Cameron Bright plays Naylor's son and here he does an excellent job of supporting the lead through subtlety and a strange dignity beyond his age. Kim Dickens and Maria Bello give wonderful roles that are too brief in the film a good shake with implications of depth that feel very realistic. Both make us believe their characters have significant backstory that they are bringing to the table. And William H. Macy, one of my personal favorites, does a great job acting as the virulently anti-cigarette Senator Finistirre. He is funny and gets out some of the most overly humorous lines with a straight face that is impressive.

It is Aaron Eckhart who the movie lives or dies on and he plays Nick Naylor impressively. I had never seen Eckhart perform before but he glues the viewer from his first moment appearing on screen. He is charming and disarming, perfectly timing a twinkle of his eyes or the barest hint of a smirk. His genius in Thank You For Smoking comes from his ability to deliver complex lines of dialogue that are almost entirely morally objectionable or ambiguous in a way that is absolutely convincing. We never once feel like we are watching a actor in Eckhart's performance (sadly, the same cannot be said for Robert Duvall in this). Eckhart convinces us of the reality of Nick Naylor and by the end, the audience is rooting for freedom almost solely based on his performance.

Thank You For Smoking is an ambitious project and it's easy to see why it took so long to bring it to the screen (and now DVD), but it's worth the viewing. It's very hard to say if this one is worth adding to one's permanent collection; I think it's definitely one to see before making that choice.

For other works with Aaron Eckhart, check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
Love Happens
The Dark Knight
Towelhead
The Wicker Man
Frasier Season Eleven

7/10

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

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Racism, Teen Sex, And Molestation: Towelhead Is Too Difficult For Me To Recommend.

The Good: Great acting, Great directing
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Graphic depictions of difficult situations, Utterly unpleasant to watch.
The Basics: A difficult film to watch, Towelhead is all over the place with its story of a young teenager coming into her own while she is taken advantage of.


For one of the rare times, I'm going to jump to the end of the review first and discuss why I am rating Towelhead so low. It wasn't long into watching this film that I realized that there were no circumstances under which I would ever recommend Towelhead to anyone, friend or not. I'm in the habit of objectively reviewing films under a pretty strict system from zero to ten and while Towelhead scores rather high on that scale on the technical merits, I kept feeling the wrenching in my stomach as the movie progressed and the protagonist, Jasira, went from being smacked around to sexually assaulted. So, for a moment, I'm ignoring the technical merits of the movie for my rating and going with my actual recommendation, which is "Avoid It!" There should be a lot more exclamation marks after that.

I went into my viewing of Towelhead excited. Alan Ball, who wrote American Beauty (reviewed here!) and created Six Feet Under (reviewed here!) adapted Towelhead for the screen and directed it. From the name alone, I knew the movie would undoubtedly be difficult in one form or another, but I was unprepared for the gutwrenching, unrelenting nature of the movie and had I known it from the outset, I probably would have been more guarded about watching it. It didn't help that Aaron Eckhart, whose works I am becoming quite a fan of, was top-billed and that helped generate even more enthusiasm for me.

When Gail's sleazy boyfriend, Barry, helps her thirteen year old daughter, Jasira, shave in her pubic region, Gail ships her daughter off to her ex-husband in Texas. Jasira finds her father strict and conventional - their first morning together he smacks her when she comes to breakfast in shorts and a t-shirt. Jasira begins to adapt to living in Texas and even takes up babysitting next door for the Army Reservist, Travis, and his family. But soon, Travis's attentions become obviously inappropriate and he begins to make advances on her when he catches her and his ten year-old son in his collection of erotic magazines.

As Jasira begins to figure out what she likes and doesn't, she falls for Thomas, a boy at school who initially joins in calling her racist epitaphs with their classmates. Jasira's father disapproves of Thomas because he is black and he forbids her from seeing him again. But, by that point, Jasira and Thomas are having sex and when her mother dumps her boyfriend and wants Jasira back, she does not want to go. As Travis continues his advances, Melina, another neighbor, takes a concerned interest in Jasira and she moves to protect the girl with the help of her husband.

What puts Towelhead into a category where its greatness may even be debated is the quality of the acting and direction. Towelhead is packed with great performances. Aaron Eckhart enters the film darkly with a subtle sense of menace for Travis which his trademark smirk is completely absent from. Instead, he is quiet, holds his body tight and the viewer almost instantly feels the threat he represents. On the flipside, Peter Macdissi bursts into Towelhead with no subtlety. As Rifat, Jasira's father, he is forceful, authoritarian and shows no hints of his Six Feet Under character, the promiscuous metrosexual art teacher Olivier. And I cannot recall a role I've ever enjoyed Toni Collette in more than her part of Melina. Collette comes into the film rather late, but she starts to steal scenes as the savior character Melina. She is likable, smart and she makes the role resonate wonderfully.

But it is Summer Bishil who has the lionshare of work to do to make Towelhead work. Bishil plays Jasira and she is fearless in the role of the early-bloomer. Bishil, who was over eighteen when the movie was filmed, is entirely credible in the demure way she plays the thirteen year old Jasira. She plays Jasira as smart, but uncertain, intelligent but ignorant and the full range of emotions she is forced to play illustrates that she is not a monolithic actress. As well, Bishil's portrayal of experiencing pain is so convincing that her performance is part of what makes the movie so hard to watch.

The other aspect of the technicals that makes Towelhead difficult to watch is the direction. Alan Ball's directing, like Bishil's acting, is fearless and as a result, the viewer is compelled to endure shots that put the viewer rather unfortunately in the head of some of the film's sickest characters. Travis is a pedophile and the way he looks at Jasira is disgusting and lurid; when Ball gives the viewer no choice but to see what Travis is looking at, the movie takes a turn into the pornographic (whether or not Bishil was over eighteen when the movie was filmed, her character is thirteen). This makes the movie uncomfortable and - for lack of a better term - just plain icky.

And here is where Towelhead falls down: it's in the content. The movie could have worked as a girl's sexual exploration. Thirteen year olds are known, wrongly or rightly, to have sex, usually with people just outside their peer group. That type relationship makes it into the movie with Jasira and Thomas. If the movie focused on young love, that would be one thing, but for far too much of the movie, Towelhead is consumed with sexual abuse and it's unpleasant and lacks anything in the way of entertainment value.

I can applaud movies that seek to expose the crimes of suburbia and I appreciate when Towelhead breaks the mold to present a story of sexual abuse, but frankly, I don't want to see it. I could live the rest of my life without seeing another movie containing explicit sexual abuse. Not all of us live in a cave on the issue; we know sexual abuse happens and, like Melina in the movie, we intervene when appropriate. But there's enough of that in real life that when I sit down to watch a movie, I'm not in the mood to watch that. Ever.

On DVD, Towelhead features only a featurette on the movie's controversial nature. Alan Ball participates in two panel discussions - one with actors, one with the novelist upon which this movie is based - to explore what the film is trying to say and they are interesting and appropriately academic. They did not, however, make me want to watch the movie again.

In conclusion, I don't fail to acknowledge that Towelhead is great for the very reasons it is difficult, but I don't think it's worth watching. I suspect it would be traumatic to survivors of abuse, titillate pedophiles and make everyone else incredibly uncomfortable, I know it has bugged me since I watched it. Ultimately, that made it easy for me to say "avoid it."

For other works with Aaron Eckhart, check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
Love Happens
The Dark Knight
Frasier Season Eleven

7.5/10 (not recommend)

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

© 2011, 2010 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Layperson's Review Of The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor: Another Boring Action-Adventure Flick!

The Good: Moments of performance, Moments of special effects
The Bad: Predictable plot, Lack of character development, Sacrifices development in favor of special effects
The Basics: Uninspired and poorly acted, The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor attempts to shower the viewer with movement and special effects to cover a poor script.


[Note: This review was originally written when "The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor" was first released to theaters and was the first of the franchise I saw. I've kept the language of the review intact because I actually enjoy the flavor of it. I hope you do, too.]

In a summer that has been characterized more for its disappointments than its roaring successes, I am finding myself wondering when we might see the influx of fresh, new, original movies from talented new writers and directors coming to theaters as a result of last year's writer's strike. I mean, when the regulars strike, isn't that when the new talent pops up and wows the executives? There must have been a lot of meetings canceled by writers on the picket line . . . Instead, we have had a summer wherein the tried and true writers and directors have disappointed movie goers with terrible movies like Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull (reviewed here!).

And the thing is, if you have been participating in Summer Blockbuster Season, odds are, you have seen previews for The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor. That being the case, most people who have seen a film this summer have seen The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor. Sadly, my impression upon seeing the preview to the movie - every time I saw it - was "They just showed the whole movie!" Unfortunately, I was not far off. And I was certainly not far enough off to enjoy the midnight screening I went to in Minneapolis of the movie. I came to The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor a virgin to The Mummy franchise (reviewed here!). In fact, I was given the opportunity to see the prior three outings before going to the screening and I declined. That way, rather than being a comparison, I could truly speak for how the movie held up on its own. Sadly, it didn't.

Alex O'Connell, a young adventurer, is exploring ruins in China when he discovers a chamber of terra cotta warriors. When the cursed leader, the Chinese Emperor Han suddenly sprouts back to life, he continues the megalomaniacal quest to take over the world that he began before he was cursed and mummified. Undead and powerful, the Dragon Emperor and his legions of warriors - also reanimated by Alex's clumsiness - begin to illustrate a capacity for world domination and Alex flees in desperation to his father. Rick O'Connell, a noted archaeologist and adventurer, has experience with returning the dead to the un-dead and when Alex returns home to beg his help, he jumps into action.

Soon, the O'Connell family is all in China, hunting clues to stop the Dragon Emperor, while Han returns to the ways that got him cursed in the first place. The O'Connells take on a sorceress ally who has intimate knowledge of Han's curse and works to thwart him . . .

Where to start with the problems of The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor? Between this and Swing Vote (reviewed here!), this is hardly the best weekend of the summer and what one suspects Hollywood needs desperately is that new, fresh talent with an eye for what has not been seen before. This is not that movie. In fact, it is plagued by moments that feel like it is utterly the same movie we have seen before in virtually every other action-adventure film ever produced. Indeed, there is nothing truly new in The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor and it comes through on all of the important levels of plot, character and acting and the supplemental front of special effects.

First, I have some respect for Eastern philosophy and for a movie taking place in China, the way maturity and age is revered is almost entirely lacking. For sure, the O'Connells employ a respectable woman whose powers only come from the wisdom of age (sort of), but the lack of respect illustrated between Alex and Rick is very American. Instead of having any sense of reverence for Rick's experience, Alex is reluctant and arrogant, defiant while requesting his aid. And Rick doesn't help things. He is characterized as somewhat buffoonish in too many parts. Sure, he looks good in a tuxedo and when he has to move, he has all of the choreographed grace of an action hero, but the character is otherwise dull. Indeed, the best elements of Rick are all characterized by his ability to move and movement does not equal character.

As one condemned to any number of movies this summer, I am getting sick of writers and directors who seem to work by that equation under the mistaken belief that those who watch movies will accept bland characters so long as they run, jump and shoot things. I do not.

The only thing less fortunate than Rick's characterization is that of the characters who accompany him. Evelyn lets off a number of wry comments and Alex seems dimly aware of the consequences of his actions early in the movie. Indeed, amid all of the forced family drama between Rick and Alex, one almost finds the rise of Han forgettable. And that type of conflict and bland acceptance that fathers and sons will not see eye-to-eye is anything but entertaining; indeed, we have seen it before. I am certain that there are any number of comparisons between the Indiana Jones films and the movies of The Mummy, but the truth is, that would be a false analogy. The Indiana Jones movies (especially the first one and, admittedly, even the latest cinematic outing) had some substance, some philosophy, something the movie wanted to say other than "hey, look at Harrison Ford run around with various costars!" The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor has nothing so smart as Nazis looking for a supernatural way to win the war and Indiana Jones fighting for freedom by recovering paranormal artifacts.

Moreover, Emperor Han is given nothing so glamorous as a reason for wanting to take over the world. World domination no longer satisfies the viewer for motivation; don't obsessive warlords realize yet that it is easy to take over the world, but impossible to keep control of it once you do?! Emperor Han seems to be bent on taking over the world and employing his seemingly invincible undead warriors simply by rote; it is what he did before, so he'll continue doing it now. The best villains have a reason and one that makes them seem more human. The reason the world isn't overrun by impractical jerks who are trying to take everything over is because it is not human nature to want to control everything (and fortunately for all of us, those who are most prepossessed toward the type of egomania needed to believe that their way is unquestionably the right and only way, tend to not get very far - usually Congress, where they are met by 534 people like them and accomplish nothing!). Watching The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor, then, is made all the less entertaining by the monolithically bad way Han is portrayed.

At least it does not challenge Jet Li to have to do much outside yell, fight and look menacing.

As for the special effects, they are able to cover up virtually everything, save the lousy acting. The performers do their best to look like they know what they are seeing when they end up in giant scenes filled with virtual characters, but there are many, many places where the characters seem detached from the world they supposedly occupy. This is an unforgivable sin in this day in age and The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor cheapens the serious movies that use effects to simply augment the good story. Here, the massive armies of undead are asked to carry the weight of the lousy script and they are crushed under that. Far too often, the special effects look like special effects and the real flesh and blood people only serve to remind the viewer of how unreal much of the rest of the movie actually is.

That said, I will admit that the dragon - even when improperly lit for the surroundings it occupies - does look pretty cool. Sadly, its presence does not justify the rest of the movie.

Brendan Fraser is saddled with the duty of selling the reality of The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor and unfortunately, through much of the film, he seems tired and bored of the role himself. For sure, his performance is different from, say, his role in Still Breathing (reviewed here!); there is nothing quirky or quiet in his performance. Instead, he is forceful, physical and he has a somewhat ridiculous obsession with screwing his face up to emote. Fraser might be an adept physical comedian, but at many points in Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor, the role does not call for that type of performance, yet that is what he gives.

The others range from adequate to terrible, from those who are comfortable working in environments opposite nothing and guessing (Jet Li) and those who seem stymied by how to act when the setting and adversaries are not present (Luke Ford). Much has been made about Maria Bello, who plays Evelyn. She apparently takes over the role from another actress and - because I have not seen those movies - I shall not comment on that. Bello does seem a little stiff though.

Some of that stiffness is hard to blame on Bello; she is given a role that is very much a sidekick and sharing that role with Ford. In other words, her stiffness might well come from being uncomfortable with having so little to do.

Sadly, by the end of the movie she is not along; that is how the viewer feels. There is a sense that we have wasted quite a bit of time and as one who has not seen the others, I am wary of wasting my time on them. One would like to believe if this is the third or fourth movie in the franchise that there was an inherent greatness in what came before. Instead, that greatness is absent in this movie.

On DVD, The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor comes with a substantive bit of bonus features. In addition to the usual deleted and extended scenes that seem invariable with this type of movie, there is a remarkably good commentary track with director Rob Cohen. As well, there are interesting special effects featurettes and stunt featurettes that make one appreciate better what ended up on screen in the film. As well, there is an interesting featurette on the casting (or recasting!) and overall, the DVD bonuses stack up rather well.

For other works written by Alfred Gough and Miles Millar, check out my reviews of:
I Am Number Four
Spider-man 2

4/10

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

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


| | |