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 Founder Is Impressive And Engaging!

The Good: Amazing direction, Incredible performances, Decent storytelling pace
The Bad: Several underdeveloped characters
The Basics: The Founder tells the story of the businessman who franchised McDonald's restaurants . . . in a truly engaging way!


One of the few nice things about the February Dump - a time of year when major studios crap out a bunch of products that would not perform well any other time, while promoting their serious offerings for Oscar Season - is that I tend to find a few minutes to catch up on films I missed during Oscar Pandering Season. Today, that takes the form of taking in The Founder. The Founder, a film about the man who created the McDonald's restaurant fast food empire, is not a film I had any inherent interest in . . . until I saw the cast. With so many wonderful actors - Michael Keaton, Linda Cardellini, John Carroll Lynch, Patrick Wilson - I became instantly intrigued. What had prompted so many wonderful performers to appear in a film about a businessman who created McDonald's?!

It did not take long for me to get an answer to that question, as The Founder is surprisingly engaging. It is worth noting that The Founder is based upon actual historic events, but I am not knowledgeable in them. As a result, this review is purely for the film The Founder and nothing else. When I discuss characters like Ray Kroc, I am referring only to the character in the film and comments about him are based only upon how that character appears in The Founder.

Opening in St. Louis, 1954, Ray Kroc is a traveling salesman working for Prince Castle, trying to sell multimixers to drive-thru restaurants and he is meeting with complete disinterest. One morning, he calls in for his messages and finds there has been an order for six mixers placed in San Bernadino, California and when he calls to speak to the restaurant's owner, the order is upped to eight mixers and that inspires Kroc to travel out to see the restaurant that wants the mixers. The restaurant is a single stand called McDonald's Hamburger's and when Kroc visits it, he is baffled by the fact that the food is ready immediately and does not come with any silverware or flatware.

While out eating his burger, Kroc meets Mac McDonald and he gets a tour of the restaurant. He is astounded by the functioning restaurant and Kroc takes Mac and Dick McDonald out to dinner to find out how they created the unconventional model for a restaurant, as they did. The next day, Kroc tells the brothers that he wants to franchise McDonald's. The brothers are disappointed because their first attempt at franchising went so poorly, but between seeing a concept design for the "golden arches" and honestly believing that if the right people were hired to manage the idea, McDonald's could be a viable franchise, Kroc is inspired. After briefly returning to his home in Illinois, Kroc returns to McDonalds where he re-pitches to the brothers. After getting an agreement from the brothers, Kroc risks his home to break ground on the first franchised restaurant in the McDonald's chain and he begins the process of building the company.

The primary concern I had when I sat down to The Founder, my big concern was that the film would be nothing more than a two hour advertisement for McDonald's. Kroc is a man who sees potential and he is tired by trying to sell things that do not truly excite him. Michael Keaton's performance following the scene where Kroc interviews the McDonalds brothers is laced with angst. Keaton plays a character who is occasionally unsettling to watch for the way he emotes and pitches his ideas. Keaton has a mastery for stiffness and physical performance that he brings to the role of Ray Kroc.

Long before Keaton opens up his mouth in the key scene where Kroc sees how his early franchises have been performing, his anger is clear. Similarly, Kroc's obsessive need to network is well-presented. Laura Dern emotes perfectly the frustration of being the long-suffering wife as Ethel Kroc. Dern matches Keaton's physical ability with her acting in The Founder. Dern is captured by director John Lee Hancock with subtle looks of sadness in almost every single scene she is in and her supporting character arc in The Founder is surprisingly memorable.

John Carroll Lynch and Nick Offerman have pretty amazing on-screen chemistry as Mac and Dick McDonald. Lynch and Offerman have to frequently do a back and forth with their dialogue that requires a patter and timing similar to Abbott And Costello. Lynch and Offerman have that kind of timing and they are impressive in the execution of their deliveries.

By the time Patrick Wilson and Linda Cardellini appear in The Founder, I found myself uncommonly hooked on the film. More than the story or the somewhat generic "love at first sight" subplot that was beginning, I caught myself paying more and more attention to the way John Lee Hancock was capturing the performances in The Founder. There is something criminal about Hancock not being nominated for the Best Director Oscar. Any director who effectively captures on film a well-choreographed scene is a shoe-in for the nomination, but it takes a truly extraordinary director to tell a story on film where the viewer knows exactly how the story ends and make is absolutely captivating. Hancock does that. The slightest lick of Cardellini's lips, Wilson subtly bristling, B.J. Novak barely in focus clearly listening, the slight slump of Laura Dern's shoulders, Michael Keaton's frantic eyes, Hancock captures everything masterfully.

Ray Kroc does not have to be a likable character; he betrays the two brothers from whom he learned of the model and he betrays his long-suffering wife who rose to the occasion to help him when he started to build his franchise empire. The Founder starts in a time when the idea of a fast food restaurant is an unheard of concept in the restaurant field; the viewer living in 2017 knows that fast food restaurants are a multi-billion a year industry and that McDonald's is one of the dominant corporations in that industry. It takes a pretty extraordinary combination of amazing acting and incredible direction to pull off a film with so many known variables in it, but Hancock and the cast of The Founder do it masterfully.

Hancock knows the exact amount of time to linger on John Carroll Lynch's sad eyes and he knows how to light a scene so that the slight furrowing of Michael Keaton's brow is captured; he makes the mundane magical and The Founder into a must-see movie!

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
The Great Wall
War On Everyone
Underworld: Blood Wars
La La Land
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

9/10

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.
| | |

Spotlight Is Another Film Where The Effects Are More Disappointing Than The Movie!

The Good: Pacing, Plot development, Decent performances
The Bad: Light on character development
The Basics: Impressive and worthwhile, Spotlight is difficult to watch more because the viewer will know it did not destroy the Catholic Church as opposed to any flaws within the film!


Today, I'm watching my last Best Picture nominee (I'm foregoing Mad Max: Fury Road because genre films and sequels have virtually no representation in Best Picture Oscar winners and Bridge Of Spies because it seems more like a courtesy nomination to Steven Spielberg than a genuine contender for the big prize): Spotlight. Spotlight is this year's big issue-based controversy nominee, following in the footsteps of movies like Doubt and Selma (reviewed here!). The film has one of the best-nominated casts of the year and it has a simplistic plot (for a film) that follows in the cinematic history of films like All The President's Men (reviewed here!).

Spotlight is based on how the reporters at the Boston Globe did investigative work to expose the conspiracy within the local Catholic Church whereby it silenced complainants from molestation victims. While Spotlight is based upon real and historical events, it is a film. It is important to note that; that when I refer to characters in the film - and judge them - it is only the film's characters I am talking about, not the historic personas upon which the film is based.

Opening in a prison in Boston, Massachussets in 1975, a desk sergeant and a cop discuss a suspect and the complainant they have in a room. The beat cop is outside and surprised when the priest and the bishop walk out and there will be no arraignment. At the Boston Globe in 2001, Walter Robinson meets with the new editor, Marty Baron. Robinson works on the Spotlight team, a special investigative group that breaks controversial stories that take up to a year to investigate and break. At his first writer's meeting, Baron reacts to a column on the "Geoghan case," a three year-old priest molestation case, where it appears that the Cardinal and local Catholic church knew about a Boston priest molested eighty children going back at least fifteen years. Robinson and his team investigate the Church.

Reporter Mike Rezendes interviews lawyer Mitchell Garabedian about the cases (84 of them) involving Catholic priests who molested children. Garabedian is almost paranoid about the Church and the way it has hounded him since he first started representing molestation victims. As the Spotlight team begins to investigate, they discover how much blowback there is from the Church and the community. The team quickly realizes that the pattern that the support group leader told them about might actually be real. After interviewing molestation victims, clergy and lawyers, the team fights to break the story. When an analyst investigating the psychological phenomenon since the 1960s implies that the paper's number of 13 bad priests in Boston should be (statistically) 90, the Spotlight team realizes that they might have a much bigger story.

Spotlight accurately portrays and recreates the effects and stories of molestation victims. It is difficult to hear their stories, but viewers have to acknowledge that it must have been far more difficult to actually be a molestation victim. Spotlight expertly details how the abusive priests act as predators to children of low-income families. When the clues point in the direction of a vastly higher number, the investigative reporting aspect of the story takes priority in the film.

In addition to accurately giving voice to victims of sexual abuse, Spotlight illustrates how a tenacious team of reporters actually works. Much of the magic of the story of Spotlight is that the characters care and they fight to ask the important questions. As the story that the Spotlight team is working on is derailed by the September 11, 2001 attacks, its members become passionate about breaking the story. The characters are tenacious and they ask questions and fight to expose the truth.

Mike Rezendes, Walter Robinson, Sacha Pfeiffer, Matt Carroll, and Marty Baron are not overly complicated characters; they share many of the same traits. Garabedian and Macleish are bound by professional ethics, but still made attempts in their past to break the story - but no one listened to them. Carroll has children he is afraid might encounter one of the priests, Pfeiffer loses her faith and Robinson discovers that his Catholic school had priests who victimized people he knew.

While Spotlight is very much an ensemble piece, Mike Rezendes and Robinson dominate the character aspect of the narrative. Rezendes lost his faith long ago, but he always thought he might go back to church. Rezendes, as played by Mark Ruffalo, presents a level of anger that the audience feels long before he exhibits it. Robinson quickly realizes how the "code of silence" and the mechanisms of keeping people silent worked. The characters are generally focused and intense and their commitment to getting the story right is only momentarily trumped by the desire not to get scooped by another Boston newspaper.

The cast of Spotlight is predictably amazing. If there is any, even minor supporting, role that Stanley Tucci cannot absolutely rock, I don't yet know it. Tucci is amazing is impressive in his conflicted role of Mitchell Garabedian. Liev Schreiber might quietly growl his way through all of his lines in ways that are very familiar for the performer, but he makes the role of Marty Baron magnetic to watch. Brian D'Arcy James, John Slattery, Billy Crudup, Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, and Michael Keaton are all wonderful in their very straightforward roles.

Spotlight is a film based on an issue and an investigation even more than the characters involved in it, so it is a triumph how captivating the film is when its results are already known to almost all viewers. The extent of the sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church is presented as completely stunning and it is astonishing that the 2002 story the Boston Globe broke did not lead to massive systemic changes. Like The Big Short (reviewed here!), Spotlight explores a massive problem that was exposed and had the potential to change the world . . . but didn't.

Director Tom McCarthy directs Spotlight well, but the story is not a particularly flashy or cinematic one. Spotlight is like a play on screen, but McCarthy and the performers make it work well enough to be an engaging and enduring film.

For other works with Len Cariou, please visit my reviews of:
"Coda" - Star Trek: Voyager
Thirteen Days
About Schmidt

9/10

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.
| | |

Mediocrity Mires Minions

The Good: Generally good animation and voice performances
The Bad: Not funny, Light on character, Dull plot
The Basics: Minions is an unfortunately unnecessary film that begs the viewer to stick with it until its obvious resolution.


With Summer Blockbuster Season firmly upon us, it is the time of year when sequels reign. Perhaps the most risky sequel of the summer is Minions, which is a prequel to Despicable Me (reviewed here!) and attempts to grow on the momentum and franchise that Despicable Me 2 (reviewed here!) delivered for Universal two years ago. The strategy behind Minions is similar to that of Despicable Me 2, which is to hire impressive voice talents, as opposed to developing an impressive story or developing characters viewers will want to watch over and over again.

Minions follows the adventures of three of the small yellow creatures of the Minion race, leading up to their inevitable and obvious meeting with the villainous Gru. While the Minions have been background characters in the Despicable Me franchise, Minions tries to convince viewers that the little yellow assistants can carry their own film. Unfortunately, for all writer Brian Lynch's efforts, he fails. Instead of creating another Despicable Me sequel or a film that is truly about the Minions, Minions is a Despicable Me film where (save for the last few minutes), Gru is replaced by a different villain and the Minions (unwittingly) assist her in her plot for domination.

After a history of the evolution of the Minions, the Minions end up in Antarctica following the defeat of Napoleon (the last losing side they are on before they flee to try to be self-sufficient). After a brief period of prosperity, the Minions become bored and troubled. The Minion Kevin steps up to try to find a new home for the Minions and/or a new overlord to give the race purpose again. Reluctantly accompanied by Stuart and Bob, Kevin journeys out into the world, where he ends up in New York City in 1968. There, the trio sees a commercial for Scarlett Overkill and the Orlando villain convention. Determined to get to Orlando, the three Minions hitchhike with the Nelsons (who are bank robbers headed to the convention).

At the convention, Kevin, Stuart and Bob are recruited by Scarlett Overkill to join her criminal enterprise. After defeating all the other potential sidekicks, the minions convince Scarlett that they are the best and she takes the trio to the United Kingdom where she is planning her biggest crime. In England, the Minions help Scarlett steal the Queen's scepter, but before she can be made the new queen, Bob inadvertently pulls Excalibur out of the stone and is made king. Determined to take over England, Scarlett Overkill turns her attention to killing Bob and the other Minions so she can take the throne.

Minions is unfortunately bland, a fact I did not consciously acknowledge until halfway through the film when I realized I had not laughed once. Lacking both humor and charm, Minions utterly fails to entertain and my mantra while watching much of the film was "who is this intended for?" There are references for adults (not particularly funny) like Minions on the therapist's couch and reactions in England mirroring girls reacting to The Beatles, and the bright colors and slapstick gags might appeal to children, but it is hard to figure out who the film is geared for. The humor is not sophisticated enough to appeal to adults and it's not manic enough to actually entertain children.

The voice acting in Minions is acceptable, but given that half the lines are gibberish spoken by Pierre Coffin to embody the Minions, it is hardly one of the great voice acting events of all time. Instead, there is a moment of delight when viewers realize that Allison Janney is voicing Madge Nelson and the shrug one delivers when they realize Sandra Bullock's Scarlett Overkill sounds remarkably similar to Janney.

The characters in Minions are not horribly distinctive or compelling; it does not take long before viewers realize they cannot carry the film. That makes it easy to pass Minions by.

For other prequels, please check out my reviews of:
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace
Prometheus
Rogue One

2.5/10

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

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

Happy Oscar Nomination Day: Birdman!

The Good: Great acting, Moments of plot and character
The Bad: Ending guts the realism of the film.
The Basics: Birdman is not the worst nominee for Best Picture, but the hype surrounding the indie film seems to be working more than the film itself.


One of the nice things about Awards Season is that it encourages me to watch any number of films that I did not get around to watching the rest of the year. As Oscar Nominations have been released today and I go through the lists, I find that I am woefully unprepared for this year’s Awards Season. In fact, for someone with a Best Picture Project (check that out here!), which has me watching the Best Picture Oscar winner each year, I find myself terribly out of step this year. Of the eight Oscar Nominees for Best Picture, I had only seen one before today! In a year when cinema was pretty crappy, I should not be surprised that only one of the films nominated for Best Picture was released outside of Oscar Pandering season. But, while watching the Golden Globe presentation on Sunday, the movie that seemed most like one I might enjoy watching was Birdman.

Birdman seems, in many ways, tailor-made to its lead, Michael Keaton. Keaton’s greatest commercial popularity came when he appeared in Tim Burton’s Batman (reviewed here!) and Batman Returns (reviewed here!). While he had many other career peaks and valleys, his box office cache was highest at that time in his career. So now, more than twenty-five years later, it is easy for The Industry and moviegoers to look at the former a-lister and sarcastically call him “washed-up” or a “has been” (William Shatner has a great song on the subject!). But, Birdman does a good job of illustrating that anyone who has been has the chance to be (in the public eye) again.

A telekinetic actor who once starred in the popular Birdman movie franchise, based upon a comic book, is now attempting to launch a theatrical play. Days before the first preview, Riggan Thomson smacks Ralph, knocking him out to get the terrible actor out of the role that Riggan originated on screen. After a round of bad press, while Ralph threatens to sue the production, Riggan realizes that the “dream actor” he wants to materialize is not going to appear. Leslie, the female lead of the play, gets actor Mike Shiner to fill in for the lead. Shiner brings real talent and some creative vision to the project, despite challenging what Riggan wrote.

When the preview goes terribly, because Mike freaks out midway through, Riggan sees that his big chance to reclaim the spotlight is slipping away. His erratic girlfriend tells Riggan he is pregnant, his new star is drunk, and Riggan’s daughter, Sam, is struggling with her sobriety (and not just leaping into bed with Mike). With theater critic Tabitha Dickinson’s New York Times review hanging over their head, Riggan and Mike prepare for the second preview. While the second preview goes vastly better than the first (despite a hiccup with Mike having an erection). But as the debut of the play looms, Riggan’s personal life spirals out of control – in real life and in his own head.

Birdman is one of those films that is almost entirely undone by its last few minutes. I like a good film with a reversal, like Brazil (reviewed here!), but so many films are diminished by the reversal; Birdman is one such film. Despite Birdman peppering clues to the end at the beginning (Riggan is not actually telekinetic, for example), the cyclical “death dream”y nature of the film robs the movie of its reality and punch.

For much of the film, Birdman captivates the audience as the story of a man who is making one last gambit for success in the public eye, while plagued by the voices of self-doubt and criticism in his own head. While there might me multiple interpretations to the film, the seeds peppered throughout – and are supported by the end – lead to a climax that guts the real-world sensibilities from the movie, in favor of an end that is both more and less fantastical. Riggan is not endowed with super powers, he is merely delusional at times (fantastic is robbed in favor of reality); the harsh life turns that have led Riggan to where he is now are called into question by the nature of the “vision” he has been experiencing (the harsh reality is, potentially, just an elaborate mental vision – a fantasy!). Either way, the intimacy of the film is diminished by sidestories, like the truth or dare game Sam and Mike play – which seems odd in a vision of Riggan’s.

While not overwhelmingly plagued by problems, Birdman has one serious casting issue and that is Edward Norton. Norton is great as Mike; he takes the role of the cocky, established Hollywood actor and makes it work masterfully. The problem is that Birdman makes multiple allusions to The Avengers (reviewed here!) and the Marvel Cinematic Universe . . . of which Edward Norton is a part. In the film Birdman, the “Birdman” franchise is a thinly veiled allusion to Michael Keaton’s participation in the cinematic Batman franchise. In Riggan’s head, his past role mocks The Avengers as living in the shadow of Birdman; he paved the way for them. There is a logical fallout, then, for denying Batman, acknowledging the current Marvel Movie phenomenon . . . and then using one of the actors from that in a role that isn’t him. In other words, it’s hard to have lines poking at Robert Downey Jr. and having Riggan surprised that Jeremy Renner ended up in a cape (metaphorically), but then have Edward Norton on screen as someone who is not Edward Norton.

On the acting front, Birdman succeeds. Never one who has been a fan of Naomi Watts (on screen, not in real life – I’m sure she is a wonderful person, but outside Mulholland Drive I can’t think of a role she’s played where I’ve been truly impressed), I was pleasantly surprised by her performance in Birdman. Watts gives a good supporting role in the form of Lesley, an actress on the verge (potentially) of a breakout. Watts is credible as a young actress and she plays off Norton incredibly well. Her ability to emote in Birdman was more impressive than Emma Stone delivering a quality tirade or Michael Keaton playing an actor who is struggling to find his spotlight again.

That said, Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton and even Zach Galifianakis (in one of his straightest, most understated supporting roles yet!) are all good in Birdman. Despite my issues with the film’s “left turn” near the end, the performances are wonderful and create a very strong sense of character and time and place. It is easy to get immersed in the film.

Unfortunately, Birdman is a tough place to want to get immersed, at least more than once. For those expecting an incredibly original tale of an actor fighting for one last chance, one last role, there is a bit too much Black Swan (reviewed here!), not enough American Dreamz (reviewed here!).

[As winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of my Best Picture Project! Check it out!)

For other films that have surreal elements, please check out my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Across The Universe
The Voices

6/10

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

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

1980s Remake Weekend Begins With Robocop!

The Good: Good use of cast, Entertaining, Moments of character
The Bad: Slow build-up, Erratic
The Basics: The remake of Robocop clumsily balances business interests, the story of a deeply traumatized character, a political minefield, and a police conspiracy story.


When it comes to genre movie franchises, there are very few that I am not open to at least exploring. In the case of the Robocop franchise, I was too young when it was originally released to see it in theaters. Given that the press at the time was focused on how the movie was originally given an X rating (they still had X back then!) for violence, there was no way my parents would let me see it. Somehow, in the intervening years, I never picked up Robocop and watched it. In fact, I prejudged the franchise as subsequent sequels diluted the concept and intensity of the original and earned a PG-13 rating. I felt it was likely that the Robocop franchise was a sell-out franchise and I just never bought into trying it. Now, however, Robocop has been remade, much like Total Recall (reviewed here!) was a year and a half ago.

Robocop benefits from the success of Iron Man (reviewed here!), but it is hard to believe it will launch a franchise anywhere near as successful. While Robocop does not rely upon its special effects to sell itself, the film’s premise bears a strong resemblance to Iron Man, though the protagonist in this remake lacks the charisma to make the viewer care about his struggle as much. Given that I have not yet seen the original Robocop, I can offer no comparative analysis between the remake and the original. That said, given how the special effects are cutting edge in this film, it is hard not to imagine the premise is better executed in visual terms in this rendition of Robocop. While some of the effects are just showboating, the actual design of the protagonist is pretty cool and the digital robots fit into the real environment seamlessly.

Opening on a segment from The Novak Element wherein the Department Of Defense reveals it is using robot soldiers in conjunction with minimal human support. The broadcast is cut short when Iranian suicide bombers in Tehran bomb the robots working the peacekeeping mission there. In Detroit, the police department has a gunrunning bust go horribly wrong. While trying to get to the big fish gangster, Alex Murphy’s partner is shot and he becomes obsessed with getting to the people who wounded him. OmniCorp, the makers of the robot soldiers, is based in Detroit and when Senator Dreyfuss effectively blocks the use of robot soldiers in the United States, the CEO of OmniCorp gets the idea to create a new type of robotic soldier that keeps the human brain intact. When Alex Murphy is the victim of a car bombing at his home, he becomes the perfect test subject for OmniCorp. Murphy’s wife Clara reluctantly turns Alex over to Doctor Norton, who makes Alex into a cyborg.

When Alex regains consciousness, he is justifiably freaked out. After Norton shows Alex just how little of his organic body remains within the suit, Alex slowly adapts to his life as a cyborg. Despite the OmniCorps’ black ops weaponer’s objections, Sellars has Norton develop and refine the robotic armor in which Alex is encased. While Alex wants to see Vallon – the gangster who shot his partner and who likely planted the car bomb – brought to justice, returning to his life and the police force takes a lot of adjustment. After defeating Mattox in a test scenario, Alex is allowed to visit his wife and son. As Alex is trotted out as the ultimate crime fighting machine, he adapts to life on the streets and works to find his humanity while bringing Vallon and his network down.

In addition to a surprisingly long build-up to an actual plot (the first half of Robocop truly is the establishment of the cyborg. The concept of the film is simple enough, but what separates it from the usual action-drama is the philosophical element presented throughout it. When the human component of the suit becomes overwhelmed at the data involved in scanning a crowd, Norton cuts Alex’s influence. How much control the company has over Alex becomes a serious issue as the lone robotic cop on Detroit’s streets takes matters into his own hands. The rights of Alex are subject to some debate as Clara takes issue with how OmniCorp uses Alex and how he acts in front of their son. Sellars sees Alex as property, Pat Novak champions the project, but Senator Dreyfus and Norton have their doubts.

What is unfortunately lacking from the political subplot of Robocop is a sense of real astuteness for Constitutional law. The creation of robotic soldiers to patrol within the United States would be a violation of posse comitatus, which is not addressed in Robocop. Moreover, the level of surveillance necessary to make the cyborg practical and functional is a huge violation of civil liberties. Senator Dreyfuss is treated more like a punchline and a buffoon because he never effectively counters the notion that United States citizens do not want to live in an occupied, authoritarian-driven society like Tehran is characterized as in the opening sequence. Moreover, the lack of understanding for how the Robocop would violate Separation Of Powers (he becomes judge, jury, and executioner over the course of the film) and that undermines the moments of sophistication the film possesses.

The emotional conflict of Alex Murphy as a cyborg is generally well-presented. While OmniCorp monitors Alex, they witness him leaving his mission to try to bring comfort to his son. Traumatized by reliving the accident that created him, Alex begins to act erratically and that gives Robocop a greater sense of realism on the character front.

The plot of Robocop is split between a moody, philosophical, character piece and an unfortunately typical and obvious action-adventure conspiracy story. While the media thread is carried throughout the film well, Pat Novak is almost a parody of the character and the influence such news media people possess.

What Jose Padilha deserves a lot of credit for is the way he uses the cast in Robocop. Gary Oldman and Michael Keaton spend most of Robocop unrecognizable (as the actors who play them) in the roles of Norton and Sellars, respectively. Oldman, Keaton, Samuel L. Jackson (Pat Novak) and Jackie Earle Haley (Mattox) brilliantly embody supporting characters that flesh out the world of Robocop,a Detroit where a robotic cop could be a reality.

Robocop’s cast is led by Joel Kinnaman, who plays Alex. Kinnaman deals with the action sequences just fine, but he lacks the on-screen charisma to make the viewer care at all about Alex Murphy. His performance is utterly unmemorable and given how well the (usually) recognizable cast members perform wonderfully, it accents his listless portrayal of the human character (especially) before his transformation.

Ultimately, Robocop has its moments, but it is surprisingly uncertain of what kind of movie it wants to be and opts for a level of complication most comparable to reality. While that usually is admirable, in the case of Robocop, it makes an action movie tedious and a philosophical character study into a ridiculous puff piece.

For other remake and reboot films, please check out my reviews of:
Friday The Thirteenth
Star Trek
Les Miserables

5.5/10

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

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

Two Directors Create A Series That Becomes The Best Cinematic Example Of The Law Of Diminishing Returns: The Batman Anthology

The Good: The first two films are good, Val Kilmer is decent, Great DVD/Blu-Ray bonus features!
The Bad: Joel Schumacher’s works, Repetitive plots, Series inconsistencies, Even the good films have not agd particularly well
The Basics: With no consisted story or direction, the Batman movies of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher make for an unfortunately inconsistent series that gets worse with each installment after a point.


With the recent end of the Dark Knight Trilogy (reviewed here!), the cinematic Batman franchise is once again in limbo. That is a state not entirely unfamiliar to Warner Bros., who owns the rights to the franchise and is the studio that produces all of the films based on DC Comics properties. With the abrupt end of the Batman movies of the 1990s, the franchise had to regroup and reboot. Before the powerful, thematically complex and decidedly adult The Dark Knight Trilogy, there were the Batman films of 1989 – 1997, now encapsulated in a boxed set known as Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is an incredible example of what happens when a surprise hit becomes a lucrative cash cow for a studio and that cow is milked too frequently and too hard. It is also a prime example of what happens to a franchise when the creative teams behind the camera and the talent in front of the camera are not kept consistent (in The Dark Knight Trilogy only one performer was recast!) and the vision by the later forces working on the series is clearly an attempt to capitalize on the formula as opposed to build upon the story and prior successes. The result is that Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is a film series that starts intriguing, rises well, and then steadily declines until its abrupt and painful crash.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 consists of the films:
Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
and Batman & Robin. The first two are directed by Tim Burton, the latter two by Joel Schumacher and three different actors play Bruce Wayne/Batman over the course of the four films!

In Batman, a young Bruce Wayne witnesses his father and mother being killed by a mysterious assassin. As an adult, Bruce Wayne manages the giant company left to him by his father by day and at night, he takes up armor and a cape to dispense vigilante justice on the streets of Gotham City. As the press pushes the police to admit that the Batman exists, a local gangster is smoked during a robbery of a chemical factory that goes horribly wrong. However, when Batman accidentally lets the gangster fall into a vat of chemicals, the man is not killed, but rather transformed into a psychopathic killer. Waging a battle with chemical weapons, the Joker menaces Gotham City and threatens to undo all the good Batman is working for.

Batman Returns happens around Christmastime a short time later. Gotham City is hit with a crime wave from a gang of thugs who use old circus equipment. While Batman keeps them in check, he is not prepared for the city to have to deal with more threats. Those threats come in the form of a mysterious man, Oswald Cobblepot, who literally rises out of the sewers to save an abducted baby and a catburgler who seems bent on wreaking vengeance at night to make up for her unsatisfying daytime life (and the fact that her boss tried to kill her). While Bruce Wayne fends off a corporate attack from his rival, Max Shreck, he finds romance with Selena Kyle and it slowly begins to dawn on him that she is the same person as the mysterious Catwoman he fights at night. When Shreck uses Cobblepot as a pawn to take the mayor’s office, the fallout creates a villain who wants to kill all the firstborn of Gotham City.

Joel Schumacher took over behind the camera and Val Kilmer took on the role of Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. In that, a demented former-District Attorney, Harvey Dent, begins a reign of terror and violence (focused on bank robberies) as the villainous Two-Face. Bruce Wayne’s problems are multiplied, though, when one of his employees creates a device that can drain the brains of the citizens of Gotham City and unlock all the secrets the people there have. As Batman squares off against Two-Face and the Riddler, he is aided by a forensic psychologist and a young acrobat who lost his parents and wants to fight crime as well . . . Robin.

George Clooney’s only outing in the cape and cowl comes in Batman & Robin where Batman and Robin are assisted by Alfred’s neice, who takes up the alter ego of Batgirl. The pair could use her help as they are bickering over how to take down the formidable Mr. Freeze and they fall under the love spell-style charms of Poison Ivy and her thug, Bane.

To his credit, Tim Burton’s two outings – in addition to being appropriately weird (as one expects from Tim Burton’s works) – have larger themes. Batman explores crime and the nature of justice vs. the pitfalls of revenge and Batman Returns has a great deal about empowering women and the snares of political corruption. Unfortunately, by the time Batman Forever comes up, the writers and director are working for big action, flamboyant villains, and star power, as opposed to trying to create films of substance. This is not to say that Tim Burton got everything right in his two films. While the miniatures look great, even by today’s standards, Batman is surprisingly slow and the focus on the Joker is far less compelling in-context of Batman’s story than it is as a stand-alone film.

That said, it is almost inarguable that Tim Burton helped effectively usher in the youth culture mindset of the 1990s with Batman and then the even more violent Batman Returns. The two films created a nihilistic sense of the world; crime ran rampant and the victories were more ambiguous than celebratory and the hero uses many of the same methods as the villains, just with nobler purpose.

Val Kilmer was not a bad choice to replace Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne and Batman and he had the physical presence to pull off the dual roles more plausibly than Keaton, who played the part of Bruce Wayne as more goofy than gallant. Kilmer, however, was saddled with a particularly weak script with Batman Forever and a film that was intended to be a Jim Carrey vehicle and ended up disappointing on so many fronts. Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever also prioritized casting (the entire series has pretty impressive guest cast members from the major – Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger – to the supporting players who flesh out surprisingly minor roles – Kim Bassinger, Robert Wuhl, Christopher Walken, Drew Barrymore, John Glover, Vivica A. Fox) over fidelity to the series thus far. To wit, in Batman, Harvey Dent was played by Billy Dee Williams and in Batman Forever he is recast with Tommy Lee Jones. It takes a lot more than an acid bath from a mobster to make Billy Dee Williams into Tommy Lee Jones!

The epitome of Schumacher’s obsession with star power and spectacle over substance is in Batman & Robin. There, Arnold Schwarzenegger appears as Mr. Freeze, a character written with a thin backstory surrounding his attempts to cure his wife (who is in suspended animation), but is executed as a character constructed almost entirely of catchphrases. To wit, his big monologue from the film’s trailer, where he introduces himself as a threat to Gotham City appears in the film’s middle, after he is incarcerated, when he introduces himself to two people (his jailers) who know exactly who he is! It is this type of stupidity that shook the series and almost gutted this franchise.

Performances in the Batman movies in this set are generally good. Michael Keaton is an intriguing Bruce Wayne and he pulled off the action sequences for Batman better than most might have suspected. Jack Nicholson performed opposite him in Batman with a flamboyancy and menace that worked beautifully to define the character of the Joker. Danny DeVito gives one of his most underrated performances as Oswald Cobblepot (the Penguin) and Michelle Pfeiffer and Keaton had great on-screen chemistry in Batman Returns. While Val Kilmer and Chris O’Donnell did fine as Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson, George Clooney seemed unusually stiff when he took up the mantle in Batman & Robbin. The less said about Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the better.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Batman Anthology is chock full of goodies. There are extensive featurettes on the production of the films, from concept designs through casting and the bonus features provide a wealth of insight into how moviemaking was done, especially at the birth of CG effects. Fans of Batman may want to champion the whole series, but given how most people will only watch bonus featurettes once, the full Batman Anthology is hardly worth investing in. Tim Burton’s works might be worth picking up, but Joel Schumacher’s outings oscillate between the disappointing and the outright insulting.

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

3.5/10

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

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

Charming But Completely Predictable, Post Grad Fills In The End Of Summer Blahs.

The Good: Moments of laughs, Generally good casting, Moments of charm
The Bad: Entirely predictable, Editing, Incongruent moments with main plotline.
The Basics: Barely fun, Post Grad flops as the subject is not enough to sustain itself, so it frequently digresses.


[Note: This originally was written upon the movie’s release, hence the dated references! Enjoy!]

As the end of summer comes, I find myself considering just what it takes for a film to participate in Summer Blockbuster Season. Every year, it seems, there are a few big surprises or a few sleeper hits and the longer Post Grad went on, the more I felt like it was this year's Swing Vote (reviewed here!). Swing Vote arrived in theaters last year with little fanfare, died at the box office and was generally a mediocre film that was predictable and understated and entirely average. Post Grad is essentially this summer's Swing Vote, replacing the message on the importance of voting with an exploration on the difficulties in the economy today.

Unfortunately for those who like romantic comedies or thematic comedies, Post Grad is far too scattered and predictable to be truly enjoyable and while it has some laughs and moments that garner smiles, it is essentially a failure. This is yet another movie where the preview trailer shows the entire movie and yet, I went into the film with high hopes. After all, this was Alexis Bledel's big chance to open a film. I loved her in Gilmore Girls (reviewed here!) and have been waiting to see what she would do on the big screen. Alas, the film starts out with Bledel playing her new character, Ryden Malby in a very Rory-esque way and the movie stagnates and wanders far too much.

Ryden Malby is graduating from college, trumped by her childhood nemesis for valedictorian, and she is surrounded by her loving family and platonic friend, Adam. Ryden has big plans and after signing a $3,500 check for her ideal loft, she goes to interview for her dream job at Happerman & Browning publishers. En route to her interview, she and Adam get into a car accident and she finds herself competing against several other candidates just like her. When her nemesis, Jessica Bard, gets her ideal job, Ryden is forced to move back in with her father, mother, grandmother and weird younger brother.

While Adam quietly pursues Ryden romantically - all the while feeling out his own musical career and debating going to law school on the East Coast - Ryden and her father try to find a path for the new college graduate. This puts Ryden working for her father, both at his luggage store and a shady startup as a belt buckle distributor, while she tries to get a better job. When her father accidentally kills the neighbor's cat, the chance encounter leads Ryden to a job as a p.a. and puts Ryden's heart in play and her future in uncertain territory.

The fundamental problem with Post Grad is that it is a comedy and that there isn't enough material to make a comedy out of the subject. Writer Kelly Fremon attempts to flesh out a script about an overachiever's flailing life after college and the film fails to stick with that. As a result, minutes burn by - not with Ryden-related romantic subplots, which are ridiculous and predictable enough - with cat poop jokes focused on Ryden's father, Walter, a weird bit involving Ryden's mother advising her younger brother to stop licking kid's heads at school and the whole belt buckle enterprise subplot. While these might flesh out the Malby family well, they completely distract the viewer from the movement of the film and the growth of Ryden into an actualized character.

As a result, Post Grad struggles to be funny and stay focused, creating an erratic story where Ryden is a fairly ambitious young woman surrounded by a family that is anything but like her. Her family is funny and Ryden is relegated to the straightman of the family and the film runs out of steam and runs out of plot well before the seventy-nine minute running time is exhausted. As a result, much of the movie is not focused on Ryden's struggle to enter the working world, but pointless digressions like her father's arrest and a soapbox derby race.

What Post Grad does have is a lot of charm and excellent casting. Alexis Bledel even performs well as Ryden more and more as the movie progresses. She and costar Zach Gilford have great on-screen chemistry and the scenes between Ryden and Adam "read" as entirely real. Gilford holds his own in the scenes they share and they insinuate in the ease of their body language a history and connoting that weight is impressive by young actors. Similarly, Bledel and Michael Keaton play well off one another. Keaton plays Walter and he is hilarious as the off-kilter father figure. Jane Lynch and Carol Burnett round out the cast well, though this represents the only bit of poor casting for the main characters. While Keaton and Bledel look like they could be related, Burnett plays Walter's mother, when she and Lynch bear a more striking resemblance.


The only real dud on the acting front is Rodrigo Santoro, whose tenure on the screen is mercifully short. Santoro and Bledel have no chemistry as Ryden and her next door neighbor and their scenes are excruciating in the way they are drawn out. Santoro's role is designed to keep open the age-old paradigm that forces a woman to choose between two men and realize that the man she wants is the one who was with her all along. Unfortunately, Post Grad does not even try to put up the pretense of surprising the viewer. This film is one of the most predictable ones to come down the pike in a long time.

As well, the editing in Post Grad is sloppy; I noticed several bad cuts throughout the movie and this is death to a movie that was already struggling to fill the minimum necessary airtime. For example, when the soapbox derby race begins, Hunter Malby's car that is brought to the starting line is clearly a different vehicle in the first shot than it is in subsequent shots.

On a strangely contrary note, the humor that is generated by the subplots and random humor elements - the headlicking bit especially - are actually some of the film's most enjoyable moments. The problem is that they just don't fit the particular movie the viewer went in to see. If this were "Meet The Malbys" it would be one thing, but it is supposed to be a comedy about the struggles one suffers after college and these scenes - most notably one where Grandma Malby takes the family coffin shopping - just do not fit.

The result is an awkward film that does not quite seem to know what it wants to be and it flounders in a way that makes it drag, despite not being a particularly long movie to begin with. That combination of lack of focus and predictability make one wonder how Fremon and director Vicky Jenson got the movie made. As it is, despite the fact that they did get it made - and with a respectable cast - ought not be encouragement for others to try or for audiences to flock to see it. And for those of us who love Alexis Bledel's works . . . we have confidence she'll get into a better project next time.

For other works with J.K. Simmons, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Megamind
Extract
I Love You, Man
Spider-Man 3
Thank You For Smoking
Spider-Man 2
Spider-Man

4.5/10

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

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

The Tarantino Film Worth Watching: Jackie Brown!

The Good: Excellent acting, Good story, Amusing, Intriguing characters, Good pace
The Bad: Some of the dialog, or more accurately, the diction of criminals.
The Basics: An excellent cast, utilized well and put in an interesting plot makes Jackie Brown a success. Bare with the language.


While nine out of ten reviewers might recommend the drug-filled, openly violent (and bloody), foul-language flick Pulp Fiction, by Quentin Tarantino, Jackie Brown is the best work of his I've yet seen. Well, to be fair to Tarantino, I've been itching to see Reservoir Dogs for years and I enjoyed his guest stint on Alias in that show’s first season.

The film is pretty simple in plot, despite the workings and reworkings of it throughout the film. Quite simply, Jackie Brown is about airline stewardess Jackie Brown who is smuggling money into the country for gun runner Ordell. In the process, Jackie is caught and extorted by the feds as well as aided by a bail bondsman named Cherry. After establishing the characters, Jackie Brown turns into a sting/heist/plan to smuggle in $500,000 and bring down Ordell in the process. As she works that whole angle, she and bail bondsman Cherry come closer and closer together.

What works in the film is not the glorified robber plot. Instead, it's the characters. They are interesting, to say the least. The gun runner surrounds himself with a classy smuggler, a mope of a hitman and a jailbait girl. Strangely, all of those characters have enough to them to watch over and over again.

Equally as good, they are well acted. While Samuel L. Jackson gives his usual great performance as the slick illegal arms dealer Ordell, the film is stolen by Robert Forster, who plays Cherry. His acting is subtle and he plays the part with a number of nuances; a tick of the eyebrow here, a subtle smirk there. His true greatness in this film is in his understated acting. His character is very realistic and he plays the character with a great deal of realistic detail that is often lacking in today's films. Cherry seems like someone any one of us might know, the benevolent friend who wants to see the good in everyone, though experience has taught him the opposite.

I credit that to Tarantino. The film's direction becomes rather important, even to those who don't usually notice direction. Tarantino, to his credit, captures the greatness of the actors at his disposal. Forster may be the best example, but he's not the only one. Pam Grier uses facial expressions well and with expert direction from Tarantino, they come through. Michael Keaton, who plays the federal officer who is hunting Ordell, gives a good performance that seems to be what he's good at, too; simple. His character stands out as one of the few that's flat (the other is Bridget Fonda's jailbait character). Actually, it's hard to tell if their acting is bad or they're playing poorly written characters exceptionally well. Go figure.

As it turns out, Jackie Brown is well paced, and one of the few films I can easily cite where the soundtrack is both noticeable and great. The series of songs - usually r&b by such artists as the Delphonics - is expertly used to enhance the film's visual elements.

Throughout the film there's a wonderful sense of movement, so even while two characters sit around doing drugs for a scene mulling over their options, the viewer feels like they are going somewhere. And the film picks up rapidly during the final sequence wherein Jackie attempts to foil all of her pursuers and get away with the money.

All in all, the movie comes together expertly, as do the machinations of Jackie Brown. My only true objections to the film were in language. Now I'm not usually a prude about language, but the word "nigger" is thrown around a little too often for my taste. I figure, however, that it works and isn't gratuitous here, in that the characters who keep throwing the word around are the same ones who are selling guns and doing drugs and it's pretty obvious language is just another tool being employed to illustrate the caliber of people they are.

For other works with Robert Forster, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Descendants
Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past
Heroes - Season Three
Mulholland Drive

9/10

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

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Starting The Modern Batman Cinematic Saga Off Well, Batman Still Ages Poorly.

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of action, Moments of performance, General character elements
The Bad: Not as intense as it ought to be for the character.
The Basics: While ambitious, fun and good, Batman did not age nearly as well as some of the other cinematic superhero films.


Last night, as part of our pre-Oscars celebration, my wife and I decided to order a pizza. Unwilling to break our diet for a random pizza and snacks, but unwilling to wait for the actual Oscars to begin, we decided to watch a movie neither of us had seen in years: Batman. I recall seeing Batman theatrically, but I remember having much more personal and enjoyable memories of seeing Batman Returns (reviewed here!). My wife and I have become so used to watching Heath Ledger’s performance of the Joker in The Dark Knight (reviewed here!), that we thought it would be enjoyable to watch Batman together and make an event out of watching the supposedly-great film right before watching the 84th Annual Academy Awards. Ultimately, we were glad we did; both of us were disappointed when The Artist won Best Picture.

But we were also not as taken with Batman as we expected to be. For sure, it is a cool, fun, all-around decent movie. But Batman is hardly flawless and there are some real detractions to the movie that once dazzled us. My wife, for example, found herself laughing at how cheesy many of the miniature shots and special effects were (though she still jumped when Vicki Vale opened the Joker’s gift box! She was preoccupied with the ridiculous sense of style, which it was hard to blame her about; the 1980s were not the most impressive from a fashion sense. But what I found interesting about watching Batman now was how it lacked a certain intensity that I have come to expect from both the film-franchise and the result of reading many graphic novels in which Bruce Wayne’s Batman is an integral character.

Gotham City is dark and plagued by crime, but the criminals in the city are running scared. Their fear and caution comes from the rumors that criminals are being stalked at night by a giant creature who may be a large bat creature. While they attribute supernatural qualities to him, he is a man with advanced technology – like body armor and grappling guns – who has the will to fight evildoers and an understanding of psychology to keep some on the streets to spread fear. The Gotham City police force and newly-elected District Attorney Harvey Dent officially deny the existence of Batman, though the police force is corrupted by officers on the mob’s payroll. One mobster, Jack Napier, is sleeping with the wife of the lead mobster and Grissom decides to have Jack snuffed out.

While hosting a charity event to raise money for Gotham City’s bicentennial celebration festival, billionaire Bruce Wayne, who is hounded by reporter Alexander Knox and photographer Vicki Vale, is alerted that the police commissioner has been called away. Converging at Axis Chemicals, the police corner Napier’s squad and in a desperate battle, Batman drops Napier into a vat of chemicals. The Joker is thus born. Sewn back together, his face twisted into a constant smile, Napier as the Joker begins cleaning up loose ends from his prior life, essentially taking control of the mob. As Bruce Wayne falls in love with Vicki Vale, the Joker begins a killing spree involving chemical tampering of health and beauty products. When the Joker discovers (and covets) Vicki Vale, Batman must stop the villain once and for all!

Batman is fun, there is no denying that. But Batman is also a lot more cluttered than I recall it being and by that I mean there are a lot of unnecessary elements in Batman that fill the movie up without adding anything truly significant. Perhaps I am just jaded; Gotham City is dirty, on the verge of bankrupt and under the fist of local mobs. But it has a vigilante, who is not excessively cruel and an engaged media and political machine that seems ot be making an effort. The whole festival plot seems thrown in as a plot point, as opposed to an actual organic event. Of course, it becomes the backdrop for the film’s climax, but it seems somehow more contrived than I remember it being as a kid.

What really stuck out for me about Batman, though, was how Bruce Wayne had a strange lack of intensity. I like Michael Keaton. I like Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne/Batman - Batman Returns is in my permanent collection and remains my favorite Christmas movie of all time (seriously!). But in Batman, he does not seem all that intense. Instead, Bruce Wayne is characterized as an absent-minded billionaire who is motivated by a strong sense of loss. In Batman, Michael Keaton captures the loss well when Bruce Wayne is shown mourning the anniversary of his parents’ murder. But there is a strange disconnect then with his ruthless efficiency in trying to clean up Gotham City’s streets. Perhaps that is part of the problem; while Batman is characterized as a vigilante, he does not seem ruthless. At several opportunities, Batman flees to keep his identity safe as opposed to actually stopping criminals. In other words, I think of Batman as something of an absolutist, almost like Rorschach from Watchmen (reviewed here!). This incarnation of Batman lacks the full intensity of the character. He is flighty as opposed to determined, cautious as opposed to confident and expresses loss and hurt more than Bruce Wayne ever seems to in the comic books. While that might make him a more human character, which I like in my movies, it makes his place as Batman a little more uncertain. In other words, this version of Bruce Wayne seems less like he would actually dress up and go out as a vigilante than the Christian Bale or Val Kilmer versions of Batman.

So, Batman ends up being a much more compelling story about the Joker. Jack Napier is smart, which works out nicely because it explains how – even in his demented Joker state – he could create the complicated killing mechanism that he does. He is played with great intensity by Jack Nicholson, who proves to be far more than thhe sum of the catch-phrase lines and make-up. In fact, the only problem with Nicholson’s execution of the Joker comes when he is playing Jack Napier. As Napier, Nicholson has the chance to show the character before the accident, before he was turned into anything inhuman. Unfortunately, Nicholson misses the opportunity. In scenes where Jack Napier and his mistress, Grissom’s wife (or girlfriend) Alicia, interact before the accident, Nicholson never seems passionate or happy. The viewer is compelled to believe that Napier will risk everything for one woman, but he never seems all that into her.

Outside that, Nicholson’s performance, like that of Michael Keaton, Kim Basinger (Vicki Vale), Robert Wuhl (Knox), Michael Gough (Alfred, Bruce Wayne’s butler) and Billy Dee Williams, who plays Harvey Dent with enough presence to figure that he was trying to set up the role for one of the sequels where he could play Dent as Two-Face. Obviously, that never materialized, but Williams has a memorable outing at Harvey Dent. The extras in Batman, though, do rob the film of any real consideration that Batman possesses perfect acting. There are unfortunate bit roles where the lesser-known actors seem especially lifeless or problematically unreal. Tracey Walter, who plays Bob the goon (there was even an action figure made of the character!), stood out for me as a guy who never seemed to be truly comfortable on camera in the movie.

On DVD, Batman comes in a two-disc edition with enough bonus features to thrill fans (and even address some of my issues with the movie!). While I kept considering Batman about a 7/10, the deluxe edition DVD set truly does give viewers enough to really fall in love with the experience of making the movie. With detailed looks at the minitatures and props, the DVD and Blu-Ray version of Batman is well worth watching, if not adding to one’s permanent collection.

For other live-action DC superhero films, please check out my reviews of:
Superman Returns
Batman Begins
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Catwoman

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete list of films I have reviewed!

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