Too Animated To Be Intimidating: The 2015 The Godfather Ornament.

The Good: Generally good sculpt, Basic coloring, Includes a sound clip
The Bad: Poor coloring details, Seems expensive
The Basics: Hallmark decides to add The Godfather to its ornament line and, despite having an awesome library of sound clips, the Don Vito Corleone ornament is more mediocre than spectacular.


As an ornament reviewer, the most common comment I hear about Hallmark's Keepsake ornament line is kvetching about how the genre-themed ornaments I review have nothing to do with Christmas. The argument is an old one and for theists who celebrate Christmas as an acknowledgment of the birth of Jesus Christ, that's understandable. As an atheist who uses the winter holidays as an excuse to see family and exchange gifts without any religious context to the gathering, the complaints about Hallmark ornaments seem like old news. But, after decades of Hallmark producing genre-themed ornaments and the massive industry it has become, the complaints of the theists ring hollow; Christmas has been commercialized and large sects of the population have a very different, non-theistic, view of the holiday. Every now and then, though, I find an ornament to review that makes me think, "yeah, the theists kind of have a point; this ornament is, like, anti-Christmas." A few years ago, the honor of opening my mind up that way came in the form of the "Frankly My Dear" Gone With The Wind ornament (reviewed here!). This year, I found myself rolling my eyes at the Don Vito Corleone from The Godfather ornament. While this doesn't have a sound clip saying "I don't give a damn," it is the embodiment of a murderous gangster who repeatedly cheats on his wife and creates a racket that uses fear and intimidation to traffic drugs, guns and other "merchandise."

Hallmark and 20th Century Fox created an ornament that embodies the iconic role of Marlon Brando as Don Vito Corleone from The Godfather for the Don Vito Corleone ornament. For those not familiar with The Godfather (reviewed here!), the film based upon the novel tells the story of how one man came to rule the Mafia. It is Marlon Brando as Don Corleone, looking surprisingly regal with his stiff back and hand raised that is the subject of the 2015 The Godfather Hallmark ornament.

Basics

The Don Vito Corleone ornament faithfully presents Don Vito Corleone in his tuxedo and cigar. This version of Don Vito Corleone has the character standing, on a black and brown base that says “The Godfather.” The sculpt is fairly detailed and entirely recognizable for anyone who has seen The Godfather. The ornament, released in 2015, is good in that it looks prety much like Marlon Brando with his slicked-back hair, rose on his lapel, left hand in his coat pocket. The ornament includes such sculpted details as the rose, bowtie, and Brando's head. Measuring five inches tall and two and a half inches in diameter on the base, the Don Vito Corleone ornament is one of several non-genre movie-related Hallmark ornaments released in 2015 and it is, so far, selling fairly conservatively. The Don Vito Corleone ornament came with an original retail price of $17.95 and it is unlikely it will retain that value.

The Hallmark Don Vito Corleone ornament is made of durable plastic. Don Vito Corleone’s shirt is white with a black tuxedo coat and pants, just like in the movie on the wedding day of his daughter. Unfortunately, the skin tones for Don Vito Corleone are monotonal; the pale color is hardly lifelike and details like Milton’s lips are virtually absent on the coloring front, despite the well-painted eyebrows over the eyes!

The Don Vito Corleone ornament features a version of Don Vito Corleone who looks more like the animated character than the man who actually appeared in the live-action film The Godfather. The skin tones on the face and forearms are monotonal as opposed to having rich coloring, which is unfortunate and undermines the potential realism of this ornament. The hair color is also solidly gray as opposed to having realistic depth and shading.

Features

As a Hallmark Keepsake ornament, Don Vito Corleone has a sound chip, but not a light-up function. Don Vito Corleone ornament comes with batteries and with the push of a button on the paperstack base, a speaker on the base plays clips from Marlon Brando. The sound clip has at least seven different quotes from The Godfather and the ornament is loud enough to be easily heard!

Balance

As with all ornaments, the intent of the Hallmark Keepsake Don Vito Corleone ornament is to be hung on a Christmas tree. For those creating the ultimate movie-themed Christmas Tree, the Don Vito Corleone ornament is pretty unnecessary. While the character is iconic and from a famous film, it is not exactly an "upper" of a film that one might want an ornament from. The ornament has the standard steel hook loop embedded into the top of Don Vito Corleone’s head at a pretty obvious position. From there, the ornament, when affixed to a tree with a hook, swings very easily and is wonderfully balanced.

Collectibility

Hallmark Keepsake began delving into the collectibles market in 1991 with Star Trek when it introduced the exceptionally limited edition U.S.S. Enterprise ornament (reviewed here!). Since then, they have made ornament replicas of almost all major franchises like DC comics, The Wizard Of Oz and Harry Potter. The Don Vito Corleone ornament was one of the early (July) ornament releases and given how The Godfather is not a merchandising cash cow, it is unsurprising that it did not sell out at any of the Hallmark's I've been to. Given that, it is hard to bet on this being a good investment piece for the foreseeable future, if ever.

Overview

The subject of the 2015 The Godfather ornament is a tough sell in both concept and execution, but fans of Don Vito Corleone, Marlon Brando, and The Godfather might still want one. Still, those fans should probably wait until the end of the season to pick it up on clearance.

For other film-based Hallmark ornaments from 2015, please check out my reviews of:
Tiana Ballerina The Princess And The Frog ornament
Platform 9 3/4 Harry Potter ornament
Dr. Zaius Planet Of The Apes ornament

6.5/10

For other ornament reviews, please visit my Ornament Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

The Birth Of The Legend: Superman Starts The Cinematic Franchise Well!

The Good: Character, Acting, Decent plot progression, Idealistic morality
The Bad: Obvious dialectic that “reads” as false, Incredible problematic ending, Much of the editing
The Basics: The definitive cinematic enterprise for the Superman franchise, the 1978 Superman (recut on DVD) stands up remarkably well.


When it comes to superheroes, I don’t know that I was ever a big fan of Superman. Superman represents an ultimate good, a surprisingly monolithic character who becomes almost all-powerful and there is very little one can do with a character like that. So, it is probably no surprise why it has taken me so many years to go back and watch Superman a film I last saw decades ago as a child and have never had the interest in watching again. However, in the lead-up to Man Of Steel (reviewed here!), I figured I would give Superman - and its three sequels – a viewing. That starts, obviously enough, with Superman, a straightforward origin story as direct as the title character.

I was pleasantly surprised by how good Superman actually was, though it is quite far from being a flawless film. I think the biggest surprise for me was how much time Superman spends on backstory and creating a larger story that works to flesh out the universe Superman will occupy. For all the legendary qualities of Christopher Reeve as Superman, it is astonishing how much of the film does not include him. It is almost 52 minutes into Superman when Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent makes his appearance. As well, I cannot think of a classic film that spend as much time laying the framework for the sequel as Superman does. That said, I enjoyed the Director’s Cut of Superman and actually found the full build-up to the revelation of the hero to be very satisfying.

On the distant planet of Krypton, Jor-El is part of the governing body that condemns three violent criminals to the dreaded Phantom Zone, where they will not be able to harm anyone. While Jor-El frequently disagrees with the council, he goes along with sentencing the three criminals. Jor-El, however, defies the council and allocates power to launch a vessel to send his infant child off-planet before Krypton is destroyed by the local star exploding and engulfing the planet. The child crashes near Smallville, in Kansas, where he is found by the Kents, an older couple who is astonished when the child, who appears to be a toddler, is able to lift the truck when it falls off the jack. Ma and Pa Kent raise Clark as their own son, raised to be humble and good. When he is in high school, Pa dies of a heart attack and Clark goes into seclusion in Antarctica where he accidentally creates a fortress of ice and crystal using a piece of his homeworld (kryptonite).

After assimilating the knowledge of his destroyed homeworld, Clark leaves his Fortress Of Solitude for Metropolis, where he gets a job with the newspaper The Daily Planet. There, he meets Lois Lane, a spunky reporter. After subtly thwarting a mugger, Clark Kent decides to fight crime seriously as his alter-ego, Superman. In addition to rescuing Lois Lane from a helicopter accident, Superman (as she eventually names him) stops petty criminals, rescues cats, and saves the President when his airplane has a mechanical malfunction. While Superman begins his ascent into the public consciousness and forms a bond with Lois Lane, under Metropolis, Lex Luthor hatches a vile scheme to make most of California’s desert into valuable real estate by reshaping the West Coast using a guided missile attack!

The first thing that struck me about Superman, after the long build-up that actually made Jor-El and interesting and vital character and did not neglect the early years of Clark Kent’s life, was how much humor Clark Kent is able to infuse into the movie. Christopher Reeve is remarkably funny as Clark Kent in both a physical comedy way and in the delivery of his naïve and idealistic lines. While Lois Lane has a running joke about misspelling words, it is Reeve and co-star Jackie Cooper (The Daily Planet editor Perry White) who have to deliver the punchlines and they are actually very funny with their deliveries.

The problem, though, with a monolithic good character is that they have to have a villain who raises their stature through their own evil motivations. Lex Luthor is the villain of Superman, but he is written with all the subtlety of a gorilla and little of the intelligence one expects from Lex Luthor. Luthor’s scheme is a surprisingly good one: he wants to use test missiles to blow up the San Andreas Fault to sink the most valuable real estate in the world into the ocean to make the worthless desert of eastern California (which he has bought up dirt cheap) the most valuable commercial property as a result. But how Lex Luthor refers to himself as a villain seriously undermines his own credibility. As Quark on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine notes in one episode, people who are involved in extralegal operations do not call themselves nefarious.

Moreover, there is no clear (in story) reason why Lex Luthor would tolerate his bumbling, idiotic sidekick, Otis. Otis is there for obvious comic relief and as a means to have Lex Luthor deliver exposition for his plans in advance of his confrontation with Superman, but smart people tend to surround themselves with smart, capable people who have the skills that they lack, but need. Lex Luthor does not need an idiotic lackey, he needs a highly functional assistant to has intelligence, but not ambition. Otis is anything but that. While Ned Beatty, who played utterly serious and functional on Homicide: Life On The Street (reviewed here!) exceptionally well, pulls off dumb and goofy in Superman it does not make his character of Otis any better.

While Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman lend instant credibility and stature to the film, much of the film rests on the acting strength of Christopher Reeve, Margo Kidder, and Jeff East. Jeff East plays the young Clark Kent and he does a masterful job of making Kal-El seem human and willing and eager to learn the morals of Ma and Pa Kent. East has the task of selling the idea that Clark Kent’s time in Smallville, Kansas formed him into a functional adult who would still have an idealism and goodness to him that came out even in his mundane identity of Clark Kent. East sells Kent as deeply human and tremendously good, having a difficult time understanding why he must limit himself to “pass.” He sets up Christopher Reeve with a strong foundation.

Reeve bursts onto the screen with a goofiness and physical presence that is disarming. He spouts off some of the most idealistic dialogue of all time and makes it seem like it is coming from a real person, which is quite a feat. He also holds his own as Superman, embodying a man with a physical power and sense of invincibility, without arrogance, that is exceptional. He and Margot Kidder have great on-screen chemistry and they make a charming screen couple.

While Richard Donner’s direction is fine and the long movie moves along at a pace that is reasonable, the editing by Stuart Baird is hardly extraordinary. There are any number of obvious and awkward cuts that pull momentum and undermine the flow of the film. I was impressed, however, how the miniature effects held up surprisingly well and how, for a wholesome film with a monolithic good protagonist, Superman still managed to engage.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman & Robin
Supergirl
Wonder Woman

7/10

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

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

Master Criminals Vie For The Perfect Heist In The Score!

The Good: Excellent acting, Good characters, Generally well-executed plot
The Bad: Disappointing (obvious) twist at the end, Disappointing underuse of Angela Bassett
The Basics: In yet another crime caper, Robert De Niro and Edward Norton give great performances as criminals competing to be masters.


Somewhere along the line in U.S. society, a line became not only blurred, but completely smeared. If you look at early movies, there were a line between good and evil and all of the movies were about how good triumphed over evil. Often, those old movies had the good guys behaving almost identically to the bad guys (punching people out, yelling at innocents to get information, etc.) to triumph, but you always knew who the good guys were and you were always rooting for them. Then, there came movies where the bad guys were more interesting, delicious even, than the good guys and we hated the ends of the movies because it didn't make sense that good could beat such an excellent bad guy. Somewhere in the nineties, continuing through today, movies started to focus on bad guys solely and we started rooting for the most human or likable bad guy without actually judging the quality of how bad they were.

The Score is one such movie, about a loose confederation of career criminals, led by Max. Max owes some serious money, so he hires Nick Wells to perform one last heist for him, a golden scepter stuck in a customs office. Max uses Jack Teller, a young criminal looking to score his first big theft. Jack's angle is that he has access to the customs office as he has been posing for weeks as a mentally retarded janitor there. Nick, eager to escape his life of crime and settle down once and for all as a nightclub owner, reluctantly takes the job and finds himself in a crossfire of lies and deceit.

Yes, it's another bank robber-type movie. Here, though, there's no moralizing over the actions of the characters, outside Diane (played by Angela Bassett), they are all morally corrupt thieves, hackers and liars. Outside the context of the movie, it's hard to like any of them (Diane being difficult to like because she is such a nonentity in the film).

But that's the power of The Score. Watching this movie, we willingly suspend our disbelief and our cultural values of property rights to root for Nick. We want to believe that he wants to make good and we come to see him rather early on as the most benevolent of thieves in a world populated by criminals. In short, he's the one to root for because he seems to have some aspirations of doing right and going legitimate.

Indeed, Nick is likable throughout the movie, played by Robert De Niro as tender and genuine in his scenes with Bassett's Diane. De Niro reminds us how great an actor he can be by making Nick different from his other characters. This is not a loud, angry performance, nor should it be; his character is both cunning and feeling his age. De Niro provides us with a far more reasonable interpretation of an aging person and a criminal who has survived so long without being caught than he would had he played him pretty much any other way.

The person who steals the show (largely because Marlon Brando looks like he's ready to die in every scene he's in in this movie) is Edward Norton. Norton does an amazing job playing a character playing a character. It seems like every ten reviews, I run into a story that requires a character to play another person, but the repetition here is certainly worthwhile; Norton quite adequately plays Jack playing a mentally retarded person without ever making the viewer feel it is Norton playing a mentally retarded person. That's skillful acting. Norton's use of body language and voice create an impressive alter ego that makes us believe in the will of Jack.

The only real problem, then, is in the resolution. There is a surprise twist at the end, but it is not a surprise to those of us who have respect for the way the world works. If we are to believe that Nick has survived so long without being caught, the end is more inevitable than surprising. Still, the reactions he receives are fun to watch and the movie is quite enjoyable.

While not living up to the caliber of The Usual Suspects, The Score easily engages the viewer and makes them root for one criminal over another. Too bad there's not more of a place for the good woman (Angela Bassett, whose part as Diane is miniscule) here.

For other works Frank Oz is involved in, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Monsters Inc.
Bowfinger
The Muppet Christmas Carol
The Star Wars Saga
Labyrinth

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page by clicking here!

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

One Man Allows Circumstances To Change His Life With The Godfather (An Almost Perfect Film).

The Good: Amazing acting, Moments of character, Great plot development, Decent soundtrack, Great DVD bonus features.
The Bad: None of the characters are particularly likable.
The Basics: Powerful and well-shot, The Godfather tells the story of the passing of the guard in a Mafia family.


According to the American Film Institute, The Godfather is the second-best film of all time, right behind Citizen Kane (reviewed here!). Neither film made it onto my own "Top Ten Films Of All Time" list, but The Godfather at least makes a run at a perfect film, whereas I'd argue Citizen Kane is largely successful because of the hype as opposed to the substance of the film. Even so, having seen The Godfather twice now, whether or not it is a perfect film or not can be the subject of debate; and ultimately, my take on it is that the film is a near-miss on perfection.

For sure, I understand that The Godfather is an epic tale and that it has depth and subtlety and even a character arc that develops wonderfully throughout the film. But even as the tale of Michael Corleone develops, I find it hard to care. Despite the story developing and unfolding well, Michael Corleone is hardly the greatest character of all time and the true disappointment is not how Michael rises up to become a Mafia Godfather, but rather his failure to resist the pressures on him. In fact, Michael is a weak man whose bad behavior is supposed to be somehow justified by the tragedies that surround him. This makes him far, far less impressive to me and I tend to prefer characters who act, who make their destinies, as opposed to those who surrender to the pressures that overwhelm them. Even so, there is enough in The Godfather to enthusiastically recommend it.

In New York City, in 1945, Connie Corleone is marrying Carlo Rizzi, which brings together the entire Corleone family, a powerful Mafia family that is one of New York's Five Families. On that day, Vito Corleone - the Godfather of the Family - cannot refuse the request of any who request favors of him, as part of an old Sicilian tradition. He is asked by his godson, singer Johnny Fontane, to help him get a movie role and Vito dispatches his consigliere, Tom Hagen, to California to take care of the problem. Among the guests is Vito's youngest son, an American Marine, Michael. Michael has effectively distanced himself from the family business. In fact, he is at such a distance that when rival gangster Sollozzo attempts to get the Corleone's into the heroin trafficking racket and Vito refuses (whatwith it being impractical for the other rackets the Corleones are involved in) and a hit is placed on Vito, no one bothers to take Michael out.

With Vito hanging onto life by a thread, Michael takes out Sollozzo and corrupt cop McCluskey and goes into hiding in Sicily. While Michael is in Sicily, the hotheaded Sonny keeps the Corleone family together during a turf war that wages on. When Carlo begins beating Connie, Sonny is drawn out and killed by his rivals. Michael is forced to return to the United States (his young wife also being killed) and he assumes the mantle of power from Vito, after the Godfather does what he can to end the war.

The Godfather is a weird combination of being packed with characters and being very plot-heavy. The thing is, characters in the film are annoyingly monolithic and as such, the film lacks some emotional impact in that none of them are terribly likable. Almost all of the old guard Mafia types are racists (which brings the drug trafficking plot to a pretty easy, if disturbing, resolution), Carlo is a dumb, abusive wifebeater, and the only aspect of the personalities we see of almost all of the primary characters is their business life. I'm not saying that the film would be better if one of the scenes opened with Sonny being interrupted while making additions to his stamp collection, but it certainly would give him some element of character that is unique and distinctive other than being a violent mobster.

In that regard, the two characters who actually have the most going for them are the Godfather, Vito, and Michael, but both are ultimately unsatisfying characters. Vito actually stands for something in that he does not want to risk his business interests over drugs when he is happy to control more reasonable vices (drinking and gambling). He is a pragmatist in this regard and he doesn't want to jeopardize his political connections with something politicians will never support. He is also something of a family man, but that level of character is displayed in the three lines a rival boss has at the climactic meeting (one of the bosses argues against getting involved in the drug trade because he doesn't want kids to get hooked). As a result, we are left watching a goon for two and a half hours and it is difficult to care what happens to a corrupt individual who is happy to employ murderous henchmen to do his bidding.

Similarly, Michael Corleone starts out as having more character than he ends up with and the transition is problematic in that circumstances change his life, not his strength of character. Michael is off living his own life when he makes a bad decision - getting revenge on the corrupt cop and the man who tried to have his father killed. After his one moment of actually acting and making a choice of his own, he spends the entire film reacting until he is pigeonholed into a role others (or "fate") select for him. He does not have the strength of character to refuse the wishes of others or to get out while he still can. This climaxes in the final scene of the film where he makes a conscious choice to do something truly despicable and by the end of the film, all of his promise is gone.

The thing is, too few people want to make the argument that Michael controls his own actions, but the truth is, he does. After one bad choice, Michael continues to make bad choices, but they are his choices. As a result, when he strikes out in a direction that is problematic or takes his character in a disappointing direction, he owns those mistakes.

The Godfather has a pretty immense cast of characters and they rotate throughout the film and come up or are referenced with such frequency that it might help to have a map. And while the casting of The Godfather is exceptional in that it uses some truly amazing talents, it is problematic in that some of the roles are cast far too closely to one another. So, for example, James Caan (Sonny) and Giani Russo (Carlo) have some resemblance; I stepped out for a moment and returned during a scene where Carlo is beating Connie and it took me a moment to realize it wasn't Sonny. Even Simonetta Stefanelli (Apollonia) looks like a younger, more tanned version of Diane Keaton. But for the essential roles, the casting is wonderful and Robert Duvall, Al Pacino and Marlon Brando are all amazing. Duval plays Tom Hagen and he is respectably smart in the role, embodying a lawyer quite well.

It surprised me to realize how few works I've seen Marlon Brando in before The Godfather. For all of the films I've seen, I've only seen Marlon Brando in The Score and On The Waterfront (reviewed here!). The Godfather is his comeback role and the one that defines him for pretty much anyone born after 1975 or who is not a fan of older movies. Brando mumbles his way through the film as the powerful Vito Corleone, easily establishing himself as one of the most memorable cinematic characters of all time. He has a dignity and strength of presence on screen that never dissipates. In fact, when Vito retires, he manages to change his entire body language and it works.

Similarly, Al Pacino is wonderful as Michael. For all of the problems with the character, Pacino is amazing as Michael. Distinctly different from his role in Glengarry Glen Ross (reviewed here!), Pacino starts the film with Michael as a likable guy who is just trying to avoid becoming like his parents. In those scenes, he is wonderfully casual, he's just a guy and seeing him smile and relax makes him seem like the most unlikely character to go down such a dark path. Pacino is electric as he slowly changes his whole demeanor to become more methodical and cold as the film goes on.

On DVD, The Godfather is packed with bonus features. There is an impressive commentary track that is very informative. In addition, there is an entire disc filled with featurettes on the translation of the novel into the film, the filming of The Godfather, its place in cinematic history and more. As well, there are the theatrical trailers for the movie and extensive interviews with the cast and crew on the effect of the film. Truly this is one of the most impressive DVD sets for a classic film.

In fact, it is just enough to bring up a film that has lousy characters to the status where I can enthusiastically recommend it. The Godfather is close to perfect, but as far as DVD special editions go, it is hard to ask for more.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here! Please check it out!]

9.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Why Does Superman Bother To Return? Superman Returns Flops.

The Good: Moments of homage to Christopher Reeve, Kevin Spacey's acting
The Bad: Lack of plot, Strained character development, Unremarkable acting
The Basics: When Superman returns to Metropolis, Lex Luthor's latest plan for world domination yields big special effects without a story, character or superlative acting.


The world is not split into two camps: people are not Batman fans or Superman fans. We are not defined simply by whether we like our superheroes as ambiguous anti-heroes or if we prefer wholly good, almost flawless . . . well, supermen. If we were, I'd definitely fall into the Batman camp; I choose Star Trek Deep Space Nine any day of the week over Star Trek The Next Generation, Babylon 5 over Alias, Blackadder over, well, there is no antithesis to Blackadder, but perhaps you get the picture. We can't all be Jedi Knights, so it's refreshing to watch a Boba Fett. Superman Returns is no The Usual Suspects.

Following a pretty incredible opening title sequence, Lex Luthor, now freed from prison, swindles an incredibly rich woman out of her fortune in order to finance his latest scheme, which appears to involve crystals. Shortly after he breaks into Superman's Fortress of Solitude, Clark Kent returns to the Daily Planet and into the lives of Jimmy Olsen and Lois Lane. Lois is engaged to be married, soon to accept her Pulitzer Prize and caring for a child that looks suspiciously like Lex Luthor. Luthor's new plan is diabolic and can only seem to be stopped by Superman himself and thus, Superman returns.

This is not The Usual Suspects. I LOVED The Usual Suspects. It's smart, it's occasionally funny, it's clever and it holds up over multiple viewings because excellent actors are portraying intriguing characters, doing interesting things. Superman Returns is none of those things. Well, almost.

Brandon Routh is decent as Clark Kent, but wooden as Superman. There are moments where he acts as Christopher Reeve's Superman or Clark Kent and those moments are sweet and poignant. Conversely, Kate Bosworth has none of the charm or screen appeal of Margot Kidder's Lois Lane. Bosworth's time on screen is time taken up with someone who just seems so . . . young. Never does Bosworth bring any gravitas to the role, no true sense of loss over Superman's time away from her, never actually delving into anything true or real.

James Marsden is wooden as ever as Richard White, Lois' fiance. It's sad when the blurred images of a man years dead - Marlon Brando, in this case - has more on-screen charisma than a real actor, but Brando's performances do trump Marsden. Parker Posey plays the fairly generic sidekick/love interest for Spacey's Luthor and while she's believable, perhaps it was seeing her play such a similar role in the last few episodes of Boston Legal that made me feel she was underutilizing her acting talents.

Kevin Spacey is the only one who owns his role in this movie. Spacey reinvents Lex Luthor, without playing to the previously established notions of who the character is. Unfortunately for him, he is not able to develop the character and the portrayal is thus flawed. After all, Luthor inherits an incredible fortune. So why, truly, does he want more? What drives him toward world domination?

It is the failure to address this problem that leads to one of the two critical flaws of this movie. Without having a character reason, the answer is simply, "it needs to be big." And in that way, everything in the movie is answered in the same way. Luthor's plan is big, Superman is forced to lift something exceptionally gigantic, Superman falls a tremendous distance, EVERYTHING is big. It leaves nowhere for this franchise to go. When Superman flies a continent off the planet, where do you go from there?

And thus, everything is big, except the story. What happens in Superman Returns? Well, Superman returns. And some crystals grow real big and Superman is forced to deal with them. That's it. That's the plot of the movie. Wow, watch crystals grow. Sigh.

Bryan Singer never gets the chance to do anything truly daring in this story, save create a thread with Superman and Lois that is questionable in its wisdom. And when Singer and the writers of the piece introduce the element, the movie is over. Nothing incredible happens. Instead, it's all mediocre.

But it's hugely mediocre. And that is, I suppose, all a summer blockbuster truly needs.

For other DC superhero films, please check out my reviews of:
Batman Begins
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Wonder Woman

3.5/10

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

© 2011, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Understanding One More Joke In My Life: On The Waterfront Is Just About Worth It.

The Good: Good acting, Good writing, Some character development
The Bad: Dated, Politically homogenous, Sound quality.
The Basics: A dated film that is engaging enough to watch, but not so extraordinary as to become part of my film vault.


So, you've probably wondered where the jokes pretty much every series does at some point where someone dons an accent and says, "I coulda been a contdenda,'" well, they come from On The Waterfront. Marlon Brando utters them and if that's your only reason to watch On The Waterfront, don't bother. In all seriousness, I sat down to On The Waterfront with two hopes in mind: 1. To hear that line spoken in context and 2. That the film might be better than Citizen Kane. Well, I accomplished both and this film is better than Citizen Kane (reviewed here!). What did surprise me was that when the famous line is spoken, it's almost in the middle of a monologue; it doesn't stand out. How or why that particular line has become part of our collective consciousness baffles me. Honestly.

That said, On The Waterfront is a fine enough film. It tells the tale of dock workers who basically are slaves to the worker's union. The dock workers wait for work and make little money working loading and unloading ships while the Union leaders sit back and get fat off easy money. Enter Terry Malloy, a prize fighter who threw two fights as he was told to and now has ended up working at the docks. Terry inadvertently is an accomplice in a murder of a worker who is prepared to identify union workers and their corrupt practices.

What follows is Malloy's personal and professional struggles. He gets involved with Joey's sister, until she learns he was an accomplice in her brother's death. That's okay, it's a pretty one-sided relationship anyway. Then, egged on by Father Barry, Terry is encouraged to step forward and do the right thing, to testify against Johnny Friendly, the union boss.

Well, the acting is there, but it's not with Brando. He's fine, he's good. But great? Nah. For the truly great acting, you have to look at Karl Malden, who plays Father Barry. He's pretty fabulous as Father Barry. You'll see in a moment that I seem to contradict that, but the truth is Malden plays Barry excellently, with vigor and zeal and realism. Rod Steiger is also notable as Charley. And, simply because I can't imagine having a chance to ever recommend his work again, Leif Erickson plays Glover well. Okay, I don't remember Glover, but I couldn't resist using "Leif Erickson" in my review. And yes, he is in the film and he does play Glover.

The film is well written; many memorable lines and such. It's fairly well directed, though that's hard to say at some points; the film quality is poor in some spots. I mean, there are times things are happening in the dark and you can't tell what's going on because, well, it's dark. Really dark.

The real setbacks of the film are in its datedness. The reason in my "pros" it says "some" character development, instead of "lots of" is because Edie Doyle (Joey's sister) and Father Barry fit dated roles, archetypes of a time long gone by. And thankfully for that! Edie is a flat character, a weak-willed woman waiting around for a man to come in and tell her what to think and feel. She doesn't read as a very real person at all. Father Barry, on the other hand, reads like a real person, but seems dated in some respects as well; the public displays of Christian zeal he makes are somewhat shocking for us in the twenty-first century to see. We're used to religion being a mostly private thing. To see a man publically enforcing morals in the name of Jesus Christ is somewhat off-putting. It's disconcerting to believe the nation is such a homogenous place. The truth is, today it's not.

The reason I'm not panning the film on those grounds is, I think it paints well the dominant culture of the time. This film is a time capsule in some ways. While Terry's quest is a good one, one still relevant today, the methods and idealism here are antiquated.

Also annoying is the sound quality and this might have been corrected on the new dvd version. But on the video tape I watched, it took me half the film to realize Terry was Terry and not "Charlie." Given there was a Charley in the film, you might understand my difficulty.

On The Waterfront is like a 1930s (yes, I'm aware the film was made in the 1950s) or 40s version of a crossover episode between NYPD Blue and The Practice, well, except there are almost no police and the law aspect doesn't come in until the end and then is solved a different way. Well, maybe it simply is what it is and that's why it deserves to be seen.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available here!

7/10

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

© 2011, 2009, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |