Marvel Universe Consequences Compound In: Spider-Man: Homecoming

The Good: Sense of realism surrounding the protagonist, Sense of consequence for prior films
The Bad: Unremarkable protagonist, Light on great or even interesting performance moments, Familiar character arc
The Basics: A painfully mediocre Marvel Cinematic Universe work, Spider-Man: Homecoming smartly explores the enduring consequences of the Chituari invasion by blandly blending that with the story of a teenager figuring out a super-suit he was given.


As a genre fan and a reviewer, Marvel films are pretty much a staple. So, it is a testament to how little enthusiasm I had going into Spider-Man: Homecoming that it took me until today (almost a week after its initial release) to actually make time to watch the movie. I have never really been a fan of the character and source material for Spider-Man, though I did like Andrew Garfield and thought he did fine in The Amazing Spider-Man (reviewed here!). Despite not feeling compelled to rush right out and see Spider-Man: Homecoming, when I sat down to the film today, I did so with an open mind and a general excitement to take the movie in.

Spider-Man: Homecoming slowly became a difficult film to review because it actually did much of what it set out to do well, but I quickly discovered how little interest I had in that story. Spider-Man: Homecoming is very much the story of what would happen if a teenage boy suddenly got into the super hero business and had to figure out his own way through developing his abilities using unfamiliar technology and no training. And Spider-Man: Homecoming did that well, but with so many other works - The Flash Season 1 (reviewed here!) and Daredevil Season 1 (reviewed here!) - where long arcs have been done showing protagonists slowly developing their skills, Spider-Man: Homecoming feels very much like it is coming late to the party.

That said, from almost the first frames of the film, Spider-Man: Homecoming is obsessed with fleshing out the consequences of prior Marvel Cinematic Universe works. In the process, Spider-Man: Homecoming further undermines Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and retcons S.H.I.E.L.D. to have been even more incompetant than it was overwhelmed. Like almost every Marvel Cinematic Universe work that followed it, Spider-Man: Homecoming explores the devastating consequences of the Battle Of New York from the climax of The Avengers (reviewed here!). When Peter Parker and Spider-Man were introduced in Captain America: Civil War (reviewed here!), there was a distracting quality to the boy's introduction to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it set Spider-Man: Homecoming to leap over the traditional super-hero origin story. Unfortunately, while bypassing the origin, Spider-Man: Homecoming gets mired in the training phase of the super hero arc and mixes that with a banal teen drama story.

Following the Battle Of New York, Adrian Toomes and his business are poised to grow from salvaging Chitauri technology when the salvage operations are taken over by a Stark subsidiary. Facing ruin, Toomes steals an artifact and - with his employees - quietly refuses to turn over technology they already recovered. Eight years later, Toomes and his crew have developed weapons based upon Chitauri technology and have begun to dominate the black market in New York selling their hybridized weaponry to criminals. Around that time, Peter Parker meets Tony Stark and is recruited for the Berlin mission. Following that, Parker is put under the guidance and observation of Happy Hogan and generally abandoned by Stark.

Peter starts cutting out his activities so he can be ready for Tony Stark's call, but it never comes. Parker takes up the mantle of Spider-Man to help people and fight street-level crime. When he encounters criminals robbing an ATM using Toomes's technology, Spider-Man inadvertently creates collateral damage in the form of a bodega Parker loves getting destroyed. Parker begins to track Toomes's crew, but quickly discovers that Tony Stark has put safeguards and tracking devices into his suit. With the help of his friend Ned, Parker deactivates the suit's safeguards and tracks Toomes's supplies to Washington, D.C. There, he is put in a position where his classmates are in danger and he has to save them.

Facing a loss of his supplies and his business, Toomes sets out to eliminate Spider-Man by finishing the development of his advanced flight suit. Toomes and his newly-promoted associate are about to be taken down by the FBI when Toomes reveals his flight suit and manages to elude Spider-Man's capture. But while Spider-Man is able to save the nearly-destroyed Staten Island Ferry that the Vulture sliced in half to escape, that draws the attention and active involvement of Tony Stark in his attempt to stop the criminal enterprise.

Spider-Man: Homecoming gets some things very right, primarily not relying excessively on special effects to make the movie work. Instead of being a fairly gross explosion of CG-effects, Spider-Man: Homecoming manages to be comparatively grounded, focusing more on the characters and the plot than big special effects sequences. And Toomes is a villain who manages to stay just on the right side of being over-the-top when he finally suits up to become Vulture.

The thing is, the pacing and tone of Spider-Man: Homecoming, having Peter Parker fumble through his early training while desperately waiting for Tony Stark's call and getting fobbed off on Happy Hogan makes the first hour and twenty minutes of the film feel like a particularly lame Iron Man spin-off. But right around the point where I was bored enough to not care, Spider-Man: Homecoming actually presents an effective reversal in the plot. When Peter Parker picks up his date for the school dance, he gets a decent surprise and Spider-Man: Homecoming finally presents a villain who is not outwitted by a fifteen year-old boy.

Unfortunately, Spider-Man: Homecoming rapidly develops a decent climax - which essentially puts Spider-Man and Vulture in a fight for a plane full of Stark Technologies crates that Happy was moving from Stark Tower to the Avengers facility in upstate New York - and then attempts a second "surprise" reversal that falls flat and feels desperate (much in the way putting "Robin" into The Dark Knight Rises felt forced).

Spider-Man: Homecoming is dominated on the acting front by Michael Keaton. Keaton plays Toomes and right off the bat, Toomes fits into the very pragmatic side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The grounding aspect of the MCU has been that characters are often limited by real-world aspects - Tony Stark making a clunky prototype suit with discarded missile pieces in a cave, the weak Steve Rogers not having any chance to join the traditional military, Scott Lang getting fired from Baskin-Robbins when they learn he is an ex-con, etc. - and Toomes starts right there. Toomes is looking to provide for his family and is willing to do anything he has to to take care of their needs. Toomes makes sense and his leap from trying to play by the rules to black market arms merchant needs no drawn-out transition. Toomes is a pragmatist whose sense of identity is maintained throughout Spider-Man: Homecoming and Michael Keaton does a good job at playing the villain, especially in a key moment when the character's sense of understanding is played entirely through Keaton's facial expressions.

For as good as Keaton is and as sensible as Toomes is as an adversary, he is not enough to save Spider-Man: Homecoming. Tom Holland plays Peter Parker as bland and Jacob Batalon, Laura Harrier, Zendaya and Tony Revolori all outshine Holland in the school scenes they share.

The biggest issues with Spider-Man: Homecoming come from its continuity in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. How did Toomes and his crew avoid falling victim to the microbes that were on Chitauri technology in the Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode "FZZT" (reviewed here!)? While the "Department Of Damage Control" seems like a pretty thin veil for S.H.I.E.L.D. teams recovering Chitauri technology in New York City, how is it that S.H.I.E.L.D. - before and after its fall from grace - never detected Toomes and his crew using Chitauri technology. While it is reasonable that a city as large as New York City would have multiple groups - Hammer Technologies, Toomes's salvage business, the New York Fire Department, and at least one privateer - that might end up with Chitauri technology, the more that new groups are retconned into having that technology, the more incompetant S.H.I.E.L.D. is made. In past Marvel Cinematic Universe works, S.H.I.E.L.D. had shit locked down - it took one man, Coulson, to investigate Thor's hammer falling to Earth and getting that (and Thor!) completely contained. Obviously, New York City is much larger and the Chituari invasion was much more massive, but the dependence within the Marvel Cinematic Universe of that invasion turning so many new-to-the-narrative characters bad reduces the effectiveness of S.H.I.E.L.D. and the magnitude of other attacks, like the Dark Elf attack on London.

Ultimately, Spider-Man: Homecoming is more forgettable than it is bad. Spider-Man: Homecoming does a decent job of exploring how big events in the Marvel Cinematic Universe have had consequences that resonate for years, but the teenager stumbling through using technology he was handed progresses with minimal flare and a comparatively low "wow" factor, making for a less-impressive cinematic outing.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Transformers: The Last Knight
Rough Night
The Mummy
Wonder Woman
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

4/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Avengers Apart: Captain America: Civil War Lives Up To The Hype!

The Good: Morality, Character moments, Good special effects
The Bad: Very basic plot, Repetitive fights to replace some substantive philosophy moments.
The Basics: The film adaptation of Marvel's Civil War storyline is crowded, but cool, with Captain America: Civil War.


As Summer Blockbuster Season hits, Marvel Comics is in a surprisingly solid position. While I was not overly impressed by Deadpool (reviewed here!), the third season of Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. actually appears to be building something legitimate and the release of Captain America: Civil War comes only a few weeks before X-Men: Apocalypse. In the unlikely event that Captain America: Civil War underperforms to its stellar-high expectations, the licenser is insured by the virtual guarantee that X-Men: Apocalypse will satisfy Marvel Comics fans and those who just love a big film full of spectacle. Fortunately, Captain America: Civil War manages to clear the bar on its high expectations and deliver a generally solid story, while setting up the next two big Marvel Cinematic Universe spin-offs (films for Black Panther and Spider-Man set within the MCU).

The irony of Captain America: Civil War is two-fold. First, despite the essential American quality of the film, it - like Star Trek Into Darkness before it - was released internationally before being released in the United States. Hollywood, truly, is dead. Second, Captain America remains a favorite of many Marvel Comics fans who would associate more with rednecks than Bernie Sanders and yet Captain America: Civil War makes an argument very firmly on the side of personal liberty. Captain America: Civil War is also one of the few Marvel films based, albeit loosely, on source material I have actually read! Captain America: Civil War adapts many of the concepts, issues, and conflicts from Civil War (reviewed here!) for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And the result is generally good, though there are moments the emotional journey of Steve Rogers is sacrificed to devote time to establishing Peter Parker and T'Challa and fleshing out more of a relationship between the Scarlet Witch and Vision.

Opening with a flashback to how Bucky Barnes was programmed to be the Winter Soldier, the present proves to be equally dangerous as Captain America's Avengers attempt to stop Crossbones from stealing a biological weapon in Lagos, Nigeria. Before he kills himself, Crossbones reveals that Bucky Barnes's programming had slipped and he recalled Steve Rogers. At M.I.T., Tony Stark gives a massive grant to the students, before he confronted by a mother whose son died in Sokovia. Shortly thereafter, Tony Stark and Secretary Of State Ross visit the Avengers training facility, where he proposes the Avengers abide by the United Nation's plan known as the Sokovia Accords. The Sokovia Accords would put the Avengers under UN control. Steve Rogers leaves the meeting when Peggy Carter dies and he heads to London for her funeral. While there, after learning that Agent 33 is Peggy Carter's niece, the United Nation's conference in Vienna where the Sokovia Accords are being ratified, is bombed. Among the dead is King T'Chaka of Wakanda. When the Winter Soldier is identified as the bomber, T'Chaka's son, T'Challa, vows revenge and Captain America has to track down Bucky Barnes before T'Challa does.

After finding and confronting Barnes - who denies that he was the bomber - Captain America and the Falcon attempt to rescue Barnes from Black Panther (T'Challa) and the international manhunt going on the Winter Soldier. War Machine is dispatched to apprehend them and in Berlin, they are captured. In Berlin, Tony Stark visits where he pressures Rogers to sign the Sokovia Accords. Rogers refuses, moments before he and his allies realize that the UN bombing was an elaborate plot to get the international community to find and imprison Barnes. The HYDRA leader, Zemo, activates the Winter Soldier's programming and that allows Barnes to escape. Recovering Barnes, Rogers and Wilson learn that Zemo was after the Siberian facility where Barnes was kept because there is more than one Winter Soldier and Zemo wants them for his own private army. While Captain America and Falcon assemble a team to stop Zemo, Tony Stark is given a 36 hour deadline to bring in Captain America, Barnes and Wilson before the military will get involved. Preparing to take down the rest of the Winter Soldiers, both sides square off on an air field leading to an intense conflict between the heroes.

Right off the bat, Captain America: Civil War starts at an odd place. The post-credits scene of Ant-Man (reviewed here!) had Bucky Barnes in custody. How he made it out of Captain America's custody is a bit of a mystery, until almost the middle of Captain America: Civil War. It seems strange that a scene viewers have already seen comes in the middle of the film, right around the time of a wierd recruitment scene that finally adds Peter Parker to the MCU.

One of the aspects of Captain America: Civil War that works surprisingly well is the burgeoning Vision and Scarlet Witch relationship. At the climax of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, Vision and Scarlet Witch became part of the same team of Avengers - essentially The Avengers 2.0. The idea that the members of the new team of Avengers, who now live at a facility together, have relationships is a smart and strong concept and it is best-executed by the way Scarlet Witch and Vision interact. Sadly, Captain America: Civil War, illustrates no similar sense of connection between Brody and Wilson, who would be part of the same team.

The introduction of Peter Parker as Spider-Man is handled about as well as one might expect when bringing a character of such magnitude into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Peter Parker gets almost five full minutes in the middle of Captain America: Civil War for a scene with Tony Stark that kills the narrative flow of the film. Chadwick Boseman gets a better, smoother, introduction into the MCU as T'Challa. T'Challa's story in Captain America: Civil War blends much, much better with the overall stories of vengeance that preoccupy the main characters.

Captain America: Civil War alludes heavily to The Avengers: Age Of Ultron (reviewed here!), while neglecting Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and not alluding to either Jessica Jones (reviewed here!) or the second season of Daredevil (reviewed here!) - both of which paid fealty to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is odd because so much of Captain America: Civil War is spent with wrapping up loose plot threads in the MCU and establishing new launching points for various Phase 3 and Phase 4 Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

The parts of Captain America: Civil War which are focused on Steve Rogers are the highlights of the film. Rogers has an ethical code and he stands by it. Tony Stark's character arc in Captain America: Civil War is a bit complicated. Stark develops from having an ethical position - albeit one that differs from Rogers's vision of how things should be done - to a kneejerk reaction of vengeance to the Winter Soldier. The transition is exceptionally effective and it almost makes Captain America: Civil War more Tony Stark's movie than Captain America's.

Captain America: Civil War features a more opaque villain than prior Captain America films and his motivations fit the film's motif remarkably well. Captain America: Civil War continues the trend in the Marvel Cinematic Universe of leaving everyone alive to use in subsequent endeavors, which is utterly unsurprising to anyone who loves the Marvel Studios films.

The performances in Captain America: Civil War are good, with there being surprisingly few standout moments of acting. The principle characters are all played by actors who have been playing their roles for several films and are familiar with their parts. The newer actors to the film manage to play opposite the established ones well enough to be seamless with the way they integrate with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The special effects in Captain America: Civil War are wonderful and the moments of reversal are very effective and suggest that they will replay well. Ultimately, that makes Captain America: Civil War worth watching.

7.5/10

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.
| | |

Rooting For Those Betting Against The Market: How The Big Short Works!

The Good: Engaging story, Decent performances, Direction and pacing
The Bad: Light on character growth/development
The Basics: Smart and worthwhile, The Big Short is more than just Oscarbait.


Over the last year, I have been a bad movie reviewer. The truth is, there have not been a lot of movies I have been excited about seeing and, as a result, I have not bothered with the rest. That said, my commitment to my Best Picture Project (That's Here!) has led me to break out of my apathy and get on seeing some of the Best Picture Oscar nominees in preparation for next week's big ceremony. So far, all I have done for the Oscars is write about the OscarsSoWhite Movement (article here!) and, long before the nominees were announced, see The Martian (reviewed here!). Tonight, I start with the Best Picture nominees with one of the few nominated films I was actually interested in watching: The Big Short.

The Big Short is a film that instantly garnered my interest - even if I did not rush right out to see it - because it was about the housing bubble crisis and it was directed by Adam McKay. My first thought was, "a comedy about the housing crisis?!" Then, I learned that The Big Short was a drama and I thought, "Adam McKay is doing a drama?! How will that work?" As it turns out, it worked out painfully well . . . mostly because McKay smartly blends the most horrific story of mismanagement with some incredibly funny lines.

Opening with the introduction of Lewis Ranieri, who created the mortgage-backed security bond, The Big Short educates and then entertains as it informs people of how the financial crisis of 2008 was precipitated. The film is based on a true story, but it is incredibly important to note that The Big Short is a film and this review is based on the movie, not the historical events it depicts. So, when I talk about characters, it is entirely specific to the film version of The Big Short.

Lewis Ranieri created the mortgage-backed security, a bond that pools the risk and debt for mortgages. In the 1970s, he sought to create money by making a long-term bond based on mortgages. Thirty years later, banker Michael Burry begins to investigate the mortgage-backed securities, based on the notion that the tech bubble burst in 2001, but the housing market in the tech corridor did not appear to be affected. After putting together data, Burry goes to the investment bank Goldman Sachs to create a bond to bet against the housing market. Meanwhile, investment banker Mark Baum - who is shaken by the effects of his brother's suicide - becomes outraged by bank overdraft fees and corruption. Baum learns about Burry's scheme when Jared Vennett's wrong number pitching the trade . . . to bet against the housing market.

Baum's team investigates some of the properties that are part of the mortgage bonds and discover that Burry's and Vennett's theories are likely true. In January 2007, mortgage loan default rate skyrockets and the market fails to adjust, which alarms Burry and Baum. The failure of the bonds created that bet against the housing securities market alerts most of the key players to the institutional fraud or outright stupidity of those at the top of the securities industry. As the truth comes out, the money flows in the direction of the four small groups that were smart and connected enough to bet against the housing market and the effects on the individuals in the groups are profound. Burry outs the mortgage industry to his investors and by April 2007, the housing bubble is collapsing and the entire economy is thrown into free fall by July.

There are few movies that so effectively manage to captivate when the subjects of the film are people profiting off the suffering of others. What The Big Short does so well, in addition to educating viewers to the biggest financial calamity of our generation (and the criminal enterprise that perpetrated it), is humanize those who made obscene amounts of money on it. The banking institutions might be made up of individuals, but the investment bankers who profited from the housing collapse are a much smaller group and The Big Short manages to illustrate well their humanity. While some of the profound effects of profiting from the financial market's collapse are only shown in the closing text montage, both Michael Burry and Mark Baum illustrate their understanding of the human cost of their financial profit.

Steve Carell entirely nails the frustration Mark Baum feels as he does the investigative work that proves Burry's theories are valid. Carell is given the film's deepest performance role and Baum is the film's most tormented and interesting character. Baum's sense of loss and disillusionment sets him up to profit from the investments he is making, while Burry's sense of being an outsider merely makes him determined in a somewhat monolithic way. For sure, Christian Bale is wonderful as Burry, but anyone who has seen Bale as Bruce Wayne has seen him play determined before!

The Big Short breaks the fourth wall to explain important financial terms and concepts. Adam McKay and writers Charles Randolph and Michael Lewis (who wrote the book upon which the film is based) tie the seeming complexity to the financial markets with pop culture in a brilliant way. In that fashion, they illustrate how major institutions bamboozle the populace by getting them to look in an entirely different direction from the calamities that are falling upon them.

Describing The Big Short is like trying to draw out a description of Argo (reviewed here!) - "It's a film about the rescue operation for the Iran hostages." - The Big Short is an explanation of the financial crisis of the mid-2000s . . . and how a few people made a lot of money off it. Of course, both films are deeper than that, but both are explorations of nuance, lines and studies in how the known can be made entertaining. Much of the credit for the power of The Big Short comes from the direction of Adam McKay. McKay has a great sense of timing for the cuts and cutaways and keeps the pace of The Big Short tight and flowing in a way that makes one almost instantly forget that the people who are the subjects of the film are hardly magnanimous.

The Big Short does not browbeat the humor or the humanity of the people who suffered to make the profits of the films protagonists. In fact, the simplicity of seeing one man - who paid his rent on time - evicted when his landlord defaulted on the mortgage makes the human statement that the ironic voiceover at the end glosses over.

As I begin my sojourn down films specifically for my Best Picture Project, it is hard not to imagine that I might have started high and picked the winner right off the bat. The Big Short has a lot of the key elements for a Best Picture, so long as one looks at the somewhat dated and specific systemic problems as an allegory of the larger corruptions of an institution that shows no signs of reforming. The Big Short is smart and complicated, even if it is not the most character-driven story.

8.5/10

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.
| | |

Am I The Only One In The World Who Did Not Enjoy Anger Management?!

The Good: Moments of humor, Generally good performances
The Bad: Agonizing tone, Predictable plot, Irksome character development
The Basics: When Dave Buznik is sentenced to 20 hours of anger management therapy, he ends up getting more than he bargained for when noted author and expert Dr. Buddy Rydell antagonizes him.


There are a number of movies that came and went in their theatrical run that I had absolutely no interest in watching that I now find myself catching thanks to my wife. Pretty much any film featuring Adam Sandler falls into that category; my wife is a fan and I’m not a huge fan – though there are some that I have enjoyed. Despite the presence of Jack Nicholson in it, I never had the urge to watch the Adam Sandler film Anger Management. That avoidance ended last night when my wife and mother-in-law were in the mood to watch Anger Management and I was in the mood to hang out with them.

Hated it.

The thing is, I don’t recall what I knew about Anger Management going into it, but from the outset the movie set me off because the protagonist seemed woefully misdiagnosed with anger issues. Adam Sandler is possibly the ultimate actor for portraying seething rage beneath a good-guy persona. He did it masterfully in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), so Sandler has abilities. For sure, there are many different ways people who have anger under the surface might act, but in Anger Management, Sandler’s character of Dave Buznik exhibits no recognizable traits of someone who is truly angry and struggles to deal with that. Instead, in Anger Management, Dave is constantly provoked and he is surrounded by angry people who overact to his calm rejections of their behavior.

Dave Buznik has been dating Linda for years and he remains too timid to commit to her, despite the fact that she pals around with Andrew, an ex who shows no respect for her relationship with Dave. Dave has a great idea that his boss takes credit for. That leads to Dave traveling for his boss and on the plane, he moves seats to sit next to Dr. Buddy Rydell. In asking for headphones, Dave is forced to wait and when he gently puts his hand on the stewardess’s elbow, the plane lands and he is charged with assault. He is sentenced to twenty hours of anger management therapy . . . with Dr. Rydell.

Rydell begins almost immediately making offers to Dave and then betraying him. Dave’s sentence is expanded to forty hours and the group sessions Dave attends include the legitimately violent Chuck, a porn star couple, and a guy who is far long in Rydell’s program, Lou. Traveling together, Dave and Rydell go through a number of exercises, like Rydell having Dave pick up a woman at a bar, then telling Linda about it. Rydell has Dave confront his childhood tormenter and then starts dating Linda himself. In the process of Rydell agitating Dave, Dave comes to stand up for himself and his relationship with Linda.

Anger Management is unpleasant to watch because almost immediately, the viewer has the sense that Dave is being played. Watching a generally nice guy get railroaded by an erratic manipulator is not my idea of entertaining. As a result of the transparent way that Rydell works Dave, the “surprise” twist near the end is more obvious than audacious. Anger Management telegraphs itself and it is frustrating to watch a film where the protagonist is so far behind the curve.

That said, Anger Management has an impressive cast that is utilized remarkably well . . . outside Sandler. Sandler’s Dave is not written to be particularly angry, clever or distinct and that leaves Sandler with remarkably little to play. Anger Management does not give Adam Sandler one of his interesting or quirky characters to play and the result is that much of the movie has the viewer watching an indistinct tool.

The rest of the cast of Anger Management is impressively utilized. Jack Nicholson plays Dr. Rydell with an energetic quality that borders on the sadistic and makes the role instantly credible. Nicholson gets through the psychobabble with a brilliant straight face and when his character turns toward the charming and erratic, he lends some continuity to the performance that makes it seem like it is the same character going through everything. Nicholson has amazing facial acting and director Peter Segal captures that wonderfully. The supplemental cast of Marisa Tomei, Luiz Guzman, Kurt Fuller, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro, Heather Graham and John C. Riley flesh out the world around Dave and Rydell to keep Sandler playing off an intriguing number of other talents.

Unfortunately, the humor in Anger Management is slapstick and not at all shocking. Telegraphed well in advance, much of the film has mediocre jokes broke up by long stretches of Rydell antagonizing Dave. Anger Management is like watching torment on film and for as much as Dave is tormented, so is the viewer.

For other works with January Jones, please visit my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
Unknown
Love Actually
Bandits

4/10

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

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

Droll Humor Plagues Parental Guidance.

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of character
The Bad: No superlative performances, Predictable plot, Lame, interchangeable jokes, One-note characters
The Basics: Billy Crystal and Bette Midler lead a decent cast performing badly in the Christmas family comedy Parental Guidance.


Every now and then, I figure the studios give up on a project. Won’t Back Down (reviewed here!) was given such a push of advanced screenings that it is a wonder that there was anyone left who might have wanted to see the film who ended up having to pay for it. In a similar fashion, I suspect the distributors of the Christmas-release family comedy Parental Guidance have decided it is not going to be able to compete with Les Miserables and they aren’t even going to try. Having gone to a screening of the Parental Guidance, I can now say that Twentieth Century Fox, seems to have made the right decision and bailed on the family comedy early.

Parental Guidance is a family comedy that is plagued by being too obvious, too safe, and overly generic. So many of the jokes could have been interchanged into other movies for virtually any other situation – in order to get up to the 104 minute running time, Parental Guidance is diluted with generic travel jokes and humor that is based on differences between the generations. The film is utterly predictable and it is another unfortunate example of a film where all of the best jokes are in the trailer, making for another dismal experience where the movie is stretched out around one or two decent (I counted five smileworthy) jokes.

Alice and Phil have to leave town and they cannot take their children with them. In desperation, Alice calls her parents, Artie and Diane, to ask if they will come and spend the week watching the kids. After much kvetching about how uncomfortable Artie is about the Alice’s parenting and his feelings of awkwardness around his grandchildren: Harper, Turner, and Darker, Diane and Artie go to Alice’s home, mostly based on Diane’s desire to have a closer relationship with the grandchildren. Once there, the family has an awkward dinner out, wherein Alice lays out the rules she wants Diane and Artie to help enforce.

When their children leave, Diane and Artie make little effort to live up to Alice’s wishes. Diane tries to be the cool grandmother, bonding especially with Harper. As difficult as it is for Artie, he begins to relate to the boys and he starts taking some joy in being a grandparent for the first time in his life.

Parental Guidance is 100% predictable and the deluge of travel jokes are anything but audacious and feel like filler as the movie slowly progresses through Artie’s complaining. The character arcs for Diane, Artie, and Alice are entirely predictable, given the way the characters are initially established. Alice is so down on how Artie and Diane raised her and she has such rigid views on how her children should be raised – she wants her kids to have more experiences, as opposed to having firm limits placed on them, yet has strict dietary restrictions for them and a few other absolute positions that prevent her parenting style from being defined as “experience-based.”

Similarly, Billy Crystal’s Artie seems to be a very obvious, generic grumpy old man at the outset of the film. Artie clearly loves his wife, but he is not keen on how Alice turned out and he has little initial interest in actually spending time with Alice’s children. Conversely, Diane is characterized as a woman who truly feels a void in her life for not being closer to her daughter and grandchildren. So, there is really very little direction the characters could go in other than Artie loosening up and Diane getting her wish (whatwith Hollywood’s adamant refusal to promote the idea that children do not solve every relationship problem and that grandparents are not universally cool or wealthy enough to spoil their grandchildren). Given that most of the flick focuses on the adults’ relationship(s), their arcs are entirely obvious.

In a similar fashion, Alice is suddenly forced to rely upon her parents in a way that she is not initially comfortable with. Given that Parental Guidance is a family comedy that falls firmly into the camp of That Kind Of Movie, there is nothing surprising in the way that Alice slowly grows to appreciate her parents and their parenting style more. Parental Guidance is one of those movies that is not about to challenge those expectations and it doesn’t.

As it turns out, Parental Guidance is actually only the second film I have seen Bette Midler on screen in. Go figure. As Diane in Parental Guidance, Bette Midler is remarkably average. She plays an archetype (the cool, doting grandmother) and she is decent in the role, but she is not particularly funny or original in the part. This is not her watershed performance (I can only assume, because otherwise, I cannot see how her film career would have endured so long). The child actors in Parental Guidance are predictably mediocre, save Bailee Madison. In Parental Guidance, Madison is no longer simply playing off the “cute factor” of a round-cheeked girl her age; she actually performs with moments of maturity and manic deliveries that is different from anything else I have seen her in before. Madison is finally getting a chance to show some range and she seems up to the challenge.

But the heart and soul of Parental Guidance is Billy Crystal (Artie) and Marisa Tomei (Alice) and neither one really shines. Crystal’s comic timing is wasted on mediocre jokes and Tomei is anything but credible as the mother of three. Neither one makes the viewer care about their characters and given that their moves toward emotional reconciliation are the crux of the emotional journey of Parental Guidance, the serious moments fail to resonate. What one is left with is a silly slapstick comedy that does nothing viewers have not seen a hundred times before.

For other works with Bailee Madison, please check out my reviews of:
Once Upon A Time - Season 1
Just Go With It
Letters To God

3/10

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.
| | |

The Coldness Of Politics, The Ides Of March.

The Good: Decent story, Most of the acting, Most of the character work
The Bad: Details with the characters, Clooney's acting, Some of Clooney's directoral choices.
The Basics: The Ides Of March has most of the makings of a great film, but never pops to get out of the "good movie" rut.


It is a rare thing that I have the chance to talk with someone right after a movie is over about the film, but tonight, when someone at the screening for The Ides Of March politely asked me to move seats so she could sit beside her husband, I tried to discourage her by telling her I was a reviewer and that I'd be writing with my left hand, which might be inconvenient to her. This did not have the desired effect. And, after the film was over, she asked me what I thought of the movie and after she left, the guy on my other side struck up a conversation with me on it. I was surprised because I actually had some real concrete thoughts on the film immediately and when he asked questions about how the movie could have been reordered to make it more interesting, I had thoughts on his ideas, pretty quickly. But what struck me was right off the bat, his question to me was, "what are you going to rate it?" and he didn't seem at all phased when I came back pretty much right away with "seven out of ten."

The Ides Of March is a seven out of ten film; it could have been great, but it doesn't quite get there. And it won't be reworked, because it comes out tomorrow. But the film was one I was excited to see, because when I saw Crazy Stupid Love. (reviewed here!), I was more than a little wowed by Ryan Gosling. The idea of a political thriller with him, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti was enough to get me to go out on a cold night. And when Evan Rachel Wood made her first appearance, I thought, "Yea! This is going to be wonderful!" But the movie never quite popped and the unfortunate truth is that most of the problems come from George Clooney. Clooney takes an uncharacteristic amount of blame because he is surprisingly uncharismatic as an actor, focused on poorly when he is directing himself and he co-wrote the script which had some moments where smart characters do uncharacteristically stupid things for people in that business.

Mike Morris is the governor of Pennsylvania and he is in a tight Democratic primary for president against Arkansas senator Pullman. Neck and neck going into Ohio, it appears that Morris has a slight advantage and might well be the Democratic nominee in a contest where it appears the Republicans cannot mount a victory. Working for his campaign are Stephen and Paul, with Paul working as chief campaign strategist. While Paul solicits an endorsement from the influential senator from North Carolina that will put the Morris campaign mathematically over the top, Stephen works to keep things at headquarters running smoothly. Following the debate between Morris and Pullman, though, Stephen is given an enigmatic phone call from Pullman's Campaign strategist, Tom and against his judgment, Stephen takes the meeting.

Tom shares with Stephen internal tracking numbers that show Pullman winning the Ohio primary because of that state's open primary ballot, where Independents and Republicans can vote in the Democratic primary. Tom asks Stephen to jump ship and join Pullman's campaign to help take the heat off the Right helping Pullman with the state. As Stephen wrestles with both the decision and whether or not to disclose to Paul and Morris himself, Stephen gets involved with a senior interns, Molly. And as he and Molly become closer, a late-night phone call to her phone clues Stephen in to the idea that all is not right with the campaign.

The Ides Of March does some things very right. First, it is stylish in the way it is shot, in terms of color schemes. Clooney films the movie to look perpetually cold and there is a strikingly sterile mood to the piece that accents the ugly dogfight between the two Democrat candidates.

As well, the characters are universally interesting. Morris is a likable enough guy with a real sense of vision. Stephen describes him idealistically as a man who will actually change people's lives and when he says it to the jaded reporter, Ida, it is almost enough to make us believe it. Stephen seems caught in a real bind and watching him wrestle with that decision is interesting at the very least. But watching Tom explain his game is even better. There is a magnetic quality to politics when it is played and The Ides Of March captures quite well the sense of gamesmanship that professional politicians are engaged in.

And most of the acting is decent. Evan Rachel Wood steals virtually every scene as Molly. She becomes the new Meryl Streep as Molly and had the film been made forty years ago, it would have have been her. But the movie is now and Wood rocks the part with more than just Hollywood good looks. She has matured into a woman with substance, quiet and precise delivery and a real presence. She holds her own with Gosling and dominates on a screen where Giamatti and Hoffman are playing some of their best game.

But the wonderful performances highlight just how frigid Clooney is and the movie gets too many things wrong to allow the viewer to become fully immersed. First, Clooney seems to be shooting himself in the foot twice as fast and with unusually heavy gauges of shotguns. Pardon the splitting metaphors, but the two notes I have for Clooney's acting in my notes are "stiff" and "restrained." And I have a theory. . . .

. . . welcome to Oscar Pandering Season! Here's the theory: George Clooney is a nice guy, but with The Ides Of March he is making a serious bid in the 2011 Oscar Pandering Season. My theory is, Clooney's a swell enough guy to think there's enough to go around and this year, what he's after is the Best Director nod. Sure, he'd like The Ides Of March to get Best Picture (it won't happen), because with him as an actor, director, producer and writer for it, his already golden name becomes platinum for five year's worth of contracts. But I don't think Clooney is greedy, I think he wants his Best Director award, so he is setting Gosling up for Best Actor and maybe Wood up for a Supporting Actress. And they deserve it. But I think Clooney purposely is taking himself off the field for the Best Actor.

And that kills The Ides Of March. Here's why the above paragraph isn't just Monday Morning Quarterbacking: Clooney kills too much of The Ides Of March by setting Gosling up for Best Actor without performing to his own strengths. Clooney is so cold as Morris that virtually every viewer will watch the movie and ask, "Is this the best he can do?" and "How did this guy get to the place where he could credibly run for President?!" It's true. Clooney has any number of Presidential qualities, but in addition to being articulate and strong, he has always had charisma. Except in this movie. Morris is dull and when he pitches a plan to educate all of the children in the U.S., he sounds like he is writing a menu. When he gives speeches, he sounds like he is reading poorly off a teleprompter. It is only in the film's final speech that he actually becomes vibrant enough to be believable.

And Clooney directs as if his intent is to let everyone but him shine. In one of the film's more important, but subtle, scenes, Morris and his wife are talking in the car about the campaign. Clooney focuses more on her than on himself; for most of the scene only his lower jaw is in frame. Thus, the viewer is not privy to his reaction shots or even most of the emotion in his face and eyes and he conveys important ideas to the one character his character is supposed to be intimate with. So, he pretty much guts his own part in the movie and the only saving grace is that the other actors pick it up wonderfully.

Even so, the movie is not flawless. Marisa Tomei's reporter character Ida, ostensibly in the movie to illustrate Stephen's arc from idealist to jaded may add realistic depth and complexity to the movie, but it beats the thematic horse to death. But the biggest problems in character come from Stephen. Stephen is supposed to be an expert gamer in the political machinations that surround him. And yet, he makes three mistakes that I caught instantly. Without ruining anything substantive to the film, here are some political mistakes made that "experts" in the field do not usually make:
1. They do not sit and have drinks with underage campaign interns (Molly in 20 and she is drinking in Kentucky at a bar with Stephen, where the drinking age is 21),
2. They do not pull money from the campaign to pay hush money from (always have your own cash on hand to pay off people!),
and 3. When dealing with unstable people whom you have just fired, always make sure they actually go in to their appointments; don't leave them in a waiting room.

Sadly, my biggest gripe with the film is that the movie isn't quite smart enough to make issues with these, instead focusing on a much more manageable faux pas with Stephen taking Tom's meeting. Those of us spoiled by The West Wing (reviewed here!) will be underwhelmed with the conflict in The Ides Of March and miss snappy dialogue and characters that pop and candidates we actually care about. The Ides Of March is cold, primary politics cold and while it does a lot right, it mostly just leaves the viewer feeling frigid.

For other political movies, please check out my reviews of:
Fahrenheit 9/11
Charlie Wilson's War
You're Welcome America: A Final Night With George W. Bush


7/10

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

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

| | |

Simply Entertaining, What Women Want Works!

The Good: Funny, Good acting, Entertaining, Writing
The Bad: Pacing, 99% Predictable
The Basics: While less-compellingly delivered than had it been a drama, this romantic comedy works at taking an old concept and making it bearable to watch again.


What Women Want is an absurdly-conceived film saved solely by most of the acting and the writing. It's a predictable romantic comedy that takes a hugely contrived premise and then beats it into the ground. The saving grace: it does it well. One of the older schools of Modernist thought is that everything has already been said. Every story that can possibly be told has already been told, that's the theory. Given that, the key now is either doing the story that is done very well or making the old thing seem new. What Women Want does a little of both and for the most part, it succeeds as such.

What Women Want follows advertising executive Nick Marshall dealing with the fact that he's a sexist, chauvinistic suit who suddenly finds himself having to take women seriously. This comes in the form of him being passed over for promotion to Creative Director of the ad agency he works for when the importance of female consumer dollars in realized and Darcy McGuire gets the job instead. Nick is determined to sink Darcy and get the job for himself when he electrocutes himself. This gives him, tacky as it is to say, the super power ability to read the minds of women. After a ridiculously quick understanding of this gift, Nick decides to use this ability to meet his goal by reading Darcy's thoughts and anticipating her campaigns.

What Women Want is a comedy. To that end, it's funny. Mel Gibson actually brings humor to Nick Marshall and Alan Alda is wonderful as his boss, Dan. A lot of the overt stuff, like Nick trying on control top panty hose is good for a brief smile and some of the stuff intended to be funny, like the fact that Nick can read the thoughts of a poodle, falls flat. The shining moments are the subtle humors. Morgan, Nick's best friend, provides quite a bit of the film's humor. The thing is, the film would have been vastly better as a drama. It's hard for people to take an idea they've seen (especially that they like) and challenge it. What Women Want would have been vastly better as a drama of one of two types: Had Nick been granted the power he received and not understood it and it destroyed him (imagine suddenly reading a single unfiltered mind, much less those of all women!) or Nick gained his power, uses it against Darcy and the effect such has on him in the negative growth direction. Essentially, Nick is using his power for a bad purpose in the film, playing with that and what it means would have made for a far far better story. Apparently, comedies are what sell for this, though.

The problem, though, is that character, the most important aspect of the story, suffers. Nick doesn't read right. I mean, basically, he's a pig at the beginning of the film. That's fine, he was raised to be one. That the ability to read women's minds suddenly makes him more understanding is ridiculous. At one point in the film, Nick uses his powers to understand a woman he is pursuing sexually. Basically, he commits the ultimate manipulation of her and that was in character. The question is, why would simply knowing women's thoughts suddenly, realistically, change Nick? Unless he's been going through life with the understanding that women don't think, obviously he wouldn't.

Outside Nick, the other characters in the film are interesting and realistic. They each have their wants and needs and they read as real people in that way. Darcy, especially, has the feel of being a real individual.

The acting overall is good. Especially the young talent. Sarah Paulson and Judy Greer play Annie and Erin with scene-stealing precision. They're better than just eye candy, they're people acting and they do it well.

The moment Nick gets his power and goes to the office, the rest of the plot becomes predictable. In all honesty, I called most all of the rest of the film in that scene. The problem is some of it doesn't make sense. The best example I can give is Nick's brief relationship with Lola. After he is pronounced a sex god, he doesn't call her for six days. That makes sense if he's the pig from the beginning, because then he doesn't care about gratifying her, he's fine in that he accomplished it once, but not in the developing character that works so hard to satisfy her. Even that isn't such a big deal because it allows the vastly more predictable main plot to progress.

Despite its faults, the writing is there. The lines are well written and they tend to be well delivered. It's not the brain surgery of film making; it's entertainment and it accomplishes that. Every once and a while, even I am able to appreciate a film that does just that.

For other romantic comedies, please check out my reviews of:
Crazy Stupid Love.
Friends With Benefits
Date Night

6/10

For other film reviews, click here to visit my index page which has the reviews organized by movie title!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not The Comedy Some Might Suspect, Crazy Stupid Love. Is A Subtle Cinematic Winner.

The Good: Amazing cast, Good dialogue, Moments of fun
The Bad: Absolutely misrepresented by the previews, Tone is more depressing than hilarious through much of the film.
The Basics: Crazy Stupid Love. blends the realistic sense of loss with a fantasy of the dating world today to make a movie that is ultimately satisfying, but more grounded than the previews made it seem.


Unlike my wife, I am actually a fan of romantic comedies. I tend to also be a lot more critical of them because I think it's a tough sell for the genre. I'm not much of a believer in "love at first sight" (there's some irony there from my personal life, but . . .) so I tend to see love in the movies more as infatuation and the time compression for relationships there is a bit more formulaic than a realist like me is comfortable with. So, I was partially excited to see Crazy Stupid Love. because I liked members of the cast and I've been waiting for a good romantic comedy. Those who have only seen the trailers are likely to go to Crazy Stupid Love. and feel like they were victims of bait and switch, though, as the film opens with a tone that is more dour, slow and moody than one would expect from a romantic comedy.

Fortunately, Crazy Stupid Love. does not become mired in its numbness like The House Of Sand And Fog and the movie is entertaining even when it veers away from the realist moodiness of the first portions in favor of a fantasy - or parody - of adult relationships today. In some ways, Crazy Stupid Love. plays better as an anti-romantic drama before it becomes a remarkably formulaic romantic comedy. What makes it work is a level of dialogue and performance that help to overcome the plot issues and character types that feel overdone.

Cal has been married for twenty-five years when his wife tells him that she has had an affair and wants a divorce, so Cal does what men who are otherwise responsible fathers fixated entirely upon their wives do, which is to go down to the nearby bar and drink himself stupid. At the bar, he meets the younger, hipper Jacob who helps straighten him out some and gets him dating again. Cal, however, truly does love Emily, who is being pursued by David. Cal tries to date, while staying in his son's life ostensibly to see if he can find the spark with Emily again.

But the longer they are around one another, the more Jacob realizes that Cal might be the answer to his dating problem. Jacob has inadvertently stopped having meaningless sex and playing the field and fallen for Hannah. So, as Cal tries to adapt to being single, Jacob turns to him for advice on how to settle down.

Crazy Stupid Love. is good. It's very good, in fact. But it's not uproariously funny and it does not feel as fresh and new as so many others seem to want to believe it is. For example, Steve Carell has been praised a lot for his acting in Crazy Stupid Love. I like the works of Steve Carell and I think he's good in Crazy Stupid Love. But what he is not is unsurprising as Cal. In fact, anyone who has seen Dan In Real Life knows just how well Carell can pull off numb and depressed and anyone who has seen Date Night (reviewed here!) can absolutely believe that Carell can play a character who goes from mired in routine to active and energized. In other words, directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa used decent casting more than mining something truly unexpected from the actor. But, to reiterate, Carell is good in the role and he plays moody, depressed and fixated exceptionally well. And when he gets the spark in his eyes from Cal having fun, he sells those moments as well.

Conversely, Emma Stone - who I've enjoyed in three out of three projects before this - does a great job playing a character I couldn't stand. Hannah, more than being a fully realized character, is a ridiculous modern archetype whereby a highly intelligent young woman falls for exactly the type guy she seems too smart to get involved with. Just like Smart People was a parody of how people see people of a certain intelligence as socially awkward and alienated, Hannah represents a downright inexplicable trend in modern cinema whereby a ridiculously smart young woman sees through the facade of ridiculous, chauvinistic gameplaying of a male character (in this case Jacob), but then wants to be with him anyway. Stone lands the role, making it through all of her articulate arguments skillfully and playfully delivering some of the movie's funniest lines, but her character is that annoying Hollywood cliche of book and street smart and emotionally stupid.

That said, Crazy Stupid Love. oscillates between being a very adult film and a surprisingly juvenile one. Ryan Gosling's Jacob is a pretty stereotypical player and reminded me almost instantly of Jake Gyllenhaal's character from Love And Other Drugs (reviewed here!). In fact, Jacob's character arc is essentially Jamie's arc only he realizes quicker he doesn't want to be a douchebag anymore. Gosling carries the role well and he is charismatic with his smile and eyes far more than by simply taking his shirt off.

The great cast seems to be going farther than I thought it would, though, because the more I analyze Crazy Stupid Love. the more I think of it as mundane and derivative. While watching the movie, it started out as depressing, but became more engaging - despite the cliche straightman/wingman teaches the player story - the more it went on. I attribute that, in large part, to the dialogue. Crazy Stupid Love. sounds good and the characters are almost all articulate and interesting (Marisa Tomei's crazy Kate being an obvious exception who seems to help prove the rule), even when they make less real-world sense than some would like.

Crazy Stupid Love is not fun for most of the movie. This is not a comedic masterpiece, instead it is a depressing character study whipped together with one of the most absurd Hollywood cliches of our time. But writer Dan Fogelman makes us believe that the otherwise sensible and stable Cal could find attraction in starting over and playing the field for a time and that fantasy is why we go to the movies. The stellar performances land an otherwise painful or absurd movie and make it worth seeing.

For other films with Emma Stone, please check out my reviews of:
The Help
Friends With Benefits
Easy A
Marmaduke
Zombieland

6.5/10

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

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

A Deeper Comedy Than Most, Cyrus Is Wonderfully Awkward Humor!

The Good: Very funny, Good character development, Decent acting, Fine plot.
The Bad: Lags in some parts, Repetitive humor.
The Basics: In a very rare (for me!) short review, I find Cyrus to be a short comedy that is funny, dark and surprisingly deep for the summer!


Given how much Step Brothers (reviewed here!) was both lauded and oversold to me by my wife (well, before she was my wife. . .), I was a bit more cautious about Cyrus going into the film than I probably ought to have been. Cyrus relates to Step Brothers more than just through the sharing of star John C. Reilly. Both movies deal with the awkwardness of remarriage. This time, instead of Reilly playing the cause of problems in a remarriage, he plays a much more plausible protagonist who is hated by the grown son of the woman he falls in love with.

Cyrus returns John C. Reilly to his dramatic cinematic roots, though the film is very much a comedy. The humor is frequently awkward and there is a darker tone to much of the interactions between John and Cyrus. But instead of being an inane comedy, like Step Brothers, Cyrus opts for smart with a film that has surprising psychological depth and is both funny and disturbing in ways that work out well for the audience.

John has been divorced from Jamie for seven years, but he still has regular communication with her. While she dates and is now engaged with Tim, John has been slow to recover from the divorce. So, Jamie takes John to a party to try to get him to socialize and he begins to fall down. But he is rescued by utter embarrassment among Jamie's friends by Molly, who is bubbling with life. Despite their inherent differences, Molly and John hit it off and they begin seeing one another. But when Molly leaves John, she returns home to Cyrus, her adult son who screams in the night and demands a lot of her attention.

As John tries to get closer with Molly, Cyrus feels threatened by his mother's new relationship and he starts threatening John, overtly and subtly. While John tries to be honest with Molly about how manipulative Cyrus is, Molly reveals her blind spot for her son and Cyrus and John are left to figure out the relationships on their own.

Cyrus is filled with awkward humor and Jonah Hill plays the title character of the film with a surprising undertone of menace. As John and Molly get frisky in the living room, Cyrus threatens John from down the hallway and while there is humor to the unexpected way this happens, it also is genuinely unsettling. More than any other movie I've seen Hill in, in Cyrus he has real range and he plays the full breadth of that ability well. So, for example, while he is cold and menacing in scenes opposite John C. Reilly, he is surprisingly affectionate and emotionally open in many of his scenes opposite Marisa Tomei, who plays his mother, Molly. There is an unhealthy connection at points between Molly and Cyrus and Hill manages to keep Cyrus as a realistic, well-conceived character throughout. In other words, the viewer never feels like Hill is playing anyone other than this very distinctive and disturbing character.

Molly is a touch more monolithic by comparison. While viewers are likely to feel thrilled for John to have found some measure of happiness, they are less likely to be interested in the John and Molly relationship because there is nothing especially distinctive about the mother (other than the fact that she lets Cyrus get disgustingly close to her at times).

But as much as Jonah Hill astounds as Cyrus, it is hard not to be impressed by John C. Reilly. Reilly returns to playing the good guy who we want to see catch a break and he makes John feel unlike any of his other characters. Still, he masters in the stiff one moment, broken at another moment until Reilly and Tomei are on screen together. After that, viewers are treated to Reilly emoting a delicious sense of complete delight and his character quickly becomes lovable. Moreover, just as we want to see Cyrus grow up and back off from Molly, Reilly helps make John a character we want to see stop struggling and move on.

And that was the deeper thing that Cyrus had that most other movies last summer did not. Amid all of the special effects flicks and dumb comedies, Cyrus had characters that are easy to care about and who have real motivations that are evident throughout. Sadly, it was forgotten or overlooked during award season just because of when it was released.

For other films featuring John C. Reilly, please check out my reviews of:
Cedar Rapids
Chicago
Magnolia

7/10

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

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




| | |