Too Soon? World Trade Center Seems Self-Indulgent

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5/10

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

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

The Long Con, Over Before It Gets Going: Ridley Scott’s Matchstick Men!

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting characters, Not a bad story
The Bad: REAL predictable for anyone with a brain who is awake
The Basics: Despite some real problems with the basic story, which tries to fool the audience, Matchstick Men is entertaining.


There's a single detail, early in the movie Matchstick Men that makes the movie dreadfully obvious and predictable. It's a simple detail and were I to reveal it here in my review, it would not ruin the movie for most people. Still, I won't give it away, not even that. Sufficed to say, when a movie is about con artists, one has to figure the movie is in some way a con itself. Matchstick Men never pretends to be anything smarter than that, so when the "big reversal" comes, most of us will not be surprised.

Roy Waller is a con artist who is a germaphobe and possibly obsessive compulsive. He's living the life of a grifter and doing quite well with his professional partner Frank. After a severe bout of stress, Roy finds himself in need of medicine and takes up therapy with Dr. Klein, who gets him to start questioning the way he lives his life. Dr. Klein helps Roy find his daughter and when Roy meets his adolescent daughter Angela, he begins to teach her the tricks of the con artist trade. Roy and Angela soon find themselves in a sticky situation involving a con.

And ultimately, of course, that leads to the real reversal in the movie.

Sigh. Some movies just try to be clever and succeed only when its pandering to the viewers of the lowest intelligence. Matchstick Men is not that bad. It's well-written, has moments that are clever, but it simply fails to get the well-watched viewer to forget its premise. Quite directly, all of the clues for what's truly going on in the movie are there, out in plain sight and the only way to miss them is, well, I don't know how one would miss them because I didn't.

The characters are interesting, though Roy's transformation is ridiculously quick. Roy goes from being a germaphobic con artist to a man who simply wants to be a good father very quickly. So, when the resolutions begin to fall into place, it's somewhat surprising that he doesn't go on a mean ticking streak. It makes the viewer feel like his initial disorder - or sense of disorder - was more an act than an actual character flaw or aspect of personality.

Conversely, all the acting is real good. Bruce McGill is fantastic as the Chuck, the mark. He's believable as greedy and turns violent perfectly. Bruce Altman is wonderful as Dr. Klein and his performance is no doubt what sells much of the movie. Even Sam Rockwell is good as Roy's partner in cons. He makes us believe the character thoroughly from beginning to end. Rockwell creates personas for Frank throughout the movie and that keeps the pace flowing.

Nicholas Cage is great as Roy. This is possibly the best performance I've seen him in. He is funny as the quirky germaphobe at the beginning (think Monk as a con artist) and despite the speed it happens at, Cage is able to soften his face at moments to make the viewer know how much his character cares about his new daughter. He plays the shifting role with ease and he incorporates mannerisms and facial expressions well to convince the audience of his character's growth and change. At the end, in fact, Cage gives an entirely different performance than what we see throughout the rest of the film.

Alison Lohman is given the lion's share of work to do here, though. Lohman's ability to sell the viewer on the enthusiastic girl one minute, then turn it on the dime to be the troubled, bothered damaged girl the next is perfect. Lohman's character so easily manipulates Roy because Lohman manipulates the audience. Her youth, innocence and playful demeanor, combined with the way she is able to cry on a dime, tugs at something very visceral and protective within Roy and the audience. She does a tremendous job in the role.

Ultimately, it's just enough of a good time for me to recommend. However, like The Game (reviewed here!), where the reversal is supposed to be big, revelatory and shocking, it falls short to fans of movies, books and television who have seen this all before. This is done well, but it starts with a serious disadvantage; trying to con an audience in the know.

For other works that Ridley Scott has been involved in, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The A-Team
Cyrus
Gladiator
Alien

6/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

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

The First Big Sequel Of 2012, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance Utterly Disappoints!

The Good: The character design is better.
The Bad: 3-D effect does nothing, Abysmal editing, No character development, Plot? What plot?!
The Basics: In one of the worst sequels ever, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance solidly disappoints anyone who likes a decent movie, much less a superhero flick.


There is some irony in my going to a sneak preview of Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance tonight. It’s ironic that I would see the new film after coming so late to the Ghost Rider phenomenon; I only saw Ghost Rider (reviewed here!) last weekend and the whole reason I sat through it was that I knew I was going to see Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance today! Between the two events, I saw only one preview for Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance and it annoyed me. In the preview, a character tells Johnny Blaze (Ghost Rider) that he has an assignment that will lift the Devil’s curse from Blaze. This irked me because Blaze made a conscious choice in Ghost Rider to keep the curse and do what he could to work against the devil Mephistopheles. So, I figured that unless Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance somehow dealt with that change in Johnny Blaze’s attitude, I would be pretty solidly panning the new sequel.

Sadly, I need no argument so finessed to completely rip into Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance. Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is a sloppy movie. The editing was done by, despite what the credits and IMDB claim, a monkey and the special effects for the 3-D elements are enough to make one swear off ever seeing a 3-D movie again. Seriously, they are that unsophisticated and add absolutely nothing to the film, even when there are giant machines put into play that could be the coolest 3-D things ever rendered on the bid screen.

Yes, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is bad. It's a terrible movie and a terrible sequel. Like The Whole Ten Yards bad sequel. In addition to having a simplified almost nonexistent plot, there is no character development and, in fact, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance illustrates a real degradation of what development was made to the Johnny Blaze character in the first Ghost Rider. While Johnny Blaze finished the first Ghost Rider as mildly articulate - even in Rider form - in Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance the character is largely nonverbal and reacts more like an addict or a full demon than a human who has any sense of conflict or nuance to him. And for those who did not see Ghost Rider, there is a simplified bit of exposition at the beginning of the movie that brings viewers completely up to speed.

Set years after the events of Ghost Rider, Johnny Blaze has come to believe that he made a terrible mistake by not relinquishing his curse. So, he hides out in Eastern Europe where he lives in seclusion and works to not hurt anyone or let the demon out. But, when Moreau comes to a fortress of monks to give them warnings about an impending evil come to take their visitor away, he accidentally draws that evil to the monks. While Benedict and his men give a good fight against Carrigan and his forces, the boy Danny flees with his mother, Nadya. Moreau visits Johnny Blaze and offers him a deal; recover Danny and keep him safe and he will get the curse lifted from Johnny.

So, Johnny begins hunting down Carrigan and his forces to get Danny. This becomes a problem when the devil Roarke intervenes and makes Danny disappear from the Rider's sixth sense for evil. But, Johnny hunts Carrigan's forces to an arm's deal in the middle of nowhere where a giant battle occurs and Johnny comes to learn just what the devil wants with Danny.

Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is more a collection of chaotically assembled fight scenes and special effects shots than it is an actual movie. The characters do not grow, develop or change and none of the new characters are even remotely interesting. Roarke in Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance is not as compelling as Mephistopheles was in Ghost Rider and Moreau, Danny and Nadya barely rise to being types as opposed to actual individuals.

It is even hard to criticize the acting in Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance because the script is so bad. Nicholas Cage plays a parody of himself as Johnny Blaze and the result is that Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance lacks menace, charm or even interesting moments. There is not a single decent or memorable line in the film and watching Cage's Blaze made me recall Mr. Freeze in Batman And Robin and how virtually every line the character delivered was a catchphrase.

Violante Placido is not even remotely interesting as Nadya and the usually wonderful Ciaran Hinds falls flat as the listless Roarke. Less of a devil, Roarke is played by Hinds as more of a washed out gangster in a mellow, blase performance. Child actor Fergus Riordan is unfortunately stiff and too frequently dead-eyed as Danny. Even Idris Elba comes to Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance with a remarkable lack of his inherent charisma. Elba plays Moreau and he is a far cry from the strong, intriguing guardian that he played in Thor.

Ultimately, the only thing Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance has going for it consistently is that the new character design for the Ghost Rider is pretty cool. The four years between Ghost Rider and Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance were spent honing the CG effect process and Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance uses that well. Unfortunately, directors Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor forget the first rule of good (not even great) special effects: if you have great effects, you have to let people see them. The biggest, most impressive sequences of Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance are poorly cut, put together even worse and presented with an irksome shaking camera motion that is more nauseating than it is at all stylish.

In conclusion, whatever hopes anyone might have had that Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance would be the beginning of a great year of sequels can stow that rumor. Instead, Ghost Rider Spirit Of Vengeance reaffirms that February is a dumping ground for movies that should never have been made in the first place.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
The Avengers
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil


1.5/10

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

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

Striving For Average, Ghost Rider Is More Underwhelming And Predictable Than Actually Bad.

The Good: Decent general story, Most of the special effects/character designs, Acing is fine
The Bad: Utterly predictable, Odd character incongruities, Never quite pops
The Basics: Ghost Rider fails to be superlative in any way, but is not the worst Marvel superhero film ever.


I never had any real interest in watching Ghost Rider. In fact, I recall being very surprised to see it in my wife's DVD collection when we moved in with one another. I probably would not have watched it, save that my wife snagged us sneak preview tickets to the sequel, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance for this week. So, figuring that I ought to go into it prepared, I sat down with her this afternoon and we took in Ghost Rider. It was only after the film began that I realized I had read a graphic novel that had Ghost Rider in it (albeit as a peripheral character), Shadowland: Blood On The Streets (reviewed here!). Considering that Ghost Rider did not remain on his feet very long in the book, I had pretty low expectations for the film.

And Ghost Rider is not terrible. It, like Jonah Hex (reviewed here!) suffers more from being predictable and somewhat uninspired than it does from being actually terrible. In other words, the movie is predictable, relies upon some obvious conceits and simply never pops, as opposed to being genuinely, unrelentingly bad. The elements in the movie never rise above what one might expect from a superhero origin story and the idea that the movie has a character with a somewhat righteous anger never quite lands.

Following an explanation of what the Ghost Riders are - bounty hunters for the devil - young Johnny Blaze, a motorcycle stunt rider and all-around daredevil, is tapped by the devil Mephistopheles to be the latest incarnation of Ghost Rider. Johnny is reluctant, but when Mephistopheles offers to cure his father's cancer, Johnny witlessly relents. When his father is killed the same day his cancer is cured, Johnny tries to run away from the devil and from the love of his young life, Roxanne.

Years later, Johnny is in his prime when Mephistopheles comes calling. On the day he is reunited with Roxanne and performs his most dangerous stunt jump of his life, Mephisopheles resurfaces to have Johnny take out a mysterious man, Blackheart. Granted the full fire-wielding powers of the Ghost Rider and riding around as a flaming skeleton on a transformed motorcycle, Ghost Rider goes up against the supernatural Blackheart and his elementally-empowered demons. But Blackheart is a devil himself and when the police, in chasing down Johnny, expose Roxanne to him, the Ghost Rider must find a way to save the world from a demonic apocalypse.

Ghost Rider has many of the elements of a successful and decent superhero story, but nothing rises above the typical. Paired with some utterly unfathomable elements - like a Ghost Rider who outruns the devil on his horse (an act that seems odd when Mephistopheles clearly travels between different planes of reality) - Ghost Rider simmers. While the love story between Johnny and Roxanne has the potential to be integral to the story and characters, it is never presented with enough passion to make it seem as vital as it ends up being. In other words, it is a simple plot point, as opposed to a genuinely strong character aspect.

On the plot front, the movie is predictable. The devil makes a deal with a man, comes to collect and the man is stuck trying to save his soul and outwit the devil. In taking on the powers granted to him by Mephistopheles, Johnny meets a mentor (Caretaker), puts a loved one in peril, and slowly dispatches his enemies. The movie has the pretty typical moments of training or understanding where the protagonist slowly learns his powers and limitations and the film climaxes, like virtually every superhero film, in a big battle sequence. But, again, in Ghost Rider, the elements feel more typical and trite than extraordinary.

Similarly, on the character front, the arcs are predictable. The movie has all of the typical hero elements along with the usual romantic subplot - that is almost vital enough to matter - and the wisecracking sidekick. Again, at no point does the antihero protagonist actually pop. I continued to not actually care if the world of the Ghost Rider did fall to the devil because there was not enough (nor anyone) significant enough to actually care about.

On the acting front, Nicholas Cage does fine as Johnny Blaze, though he is remarkably passionless in his scenes with Eva Mendez. He plays shocked and stupefied opposite her, not actually in love. Similarly, Peter Fonda seems asleep at the wheel as Mephistopheles and Sam Elliott is playing an archetype more than an individual as the Caretaker. Even Wes Bentley gives an understated performance as the villainous Blackheart. And while many of the lines of dialogue are just obvious, guessable (about two minutes before they are delivered) and just bad, the acting is not. The actors do what they can with the material given to them, nothing more, nothing less.

Finally, the special effects are fair. Director and writer Mark Steven Johnson does a fine job with the general look of the movie. The creature designs are good, though the Ghost Rider skull looked much more animated than real. The editing, on the other hand, it atrocious and sucks the movie down a little.

On DVD, Ghost Rider comes with two commentary tracks, two featurettes and previews, none of which reveal just how there was enough enthusiasm in the project to warrant a sequel.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

4.5/10

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

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

Losing The Translation To Attempts At Wittiness, Adaptation. Fizzles.

The Good: Decent acting, Good opening
The Bad: Degenerates into a scholarly experiment, Pacing, Lack of sensible character development, Utter lack of plot
The Basics: Adaptation. begins as a slow story about a ridiculously nervous screenwriter and degenerates into a disappointing scholarly exercise even a person with a comparative literature major couldn't enjoy.


As a novelist, I am always interested in what is new and different. I went into Adaptation. with high hopes and reasonable expectations. I had enjoyed Being John Malkovich and I found the previews to Adaptation. compelling. That said, I was horribly disappointed.

Opening with Charlie Kaufman, who actually did write the film Adaptation., the fictional character is pushed aside on the set of his own film and he is portrayed instantly though his own voiceover as a loser. Charlie then goes on to get the film rights to the book "The Orchid Thief" and struggles with making what he finds a great novel into an even remotely workable film. The narrative bounces between Kaufman's agonizing attempts to write the film while his twin brother Donald makes a very "Hollywood" horror script and the past where Susan Orlean researches and writes "The Orchid Thief." Orlean is led by John Laroche, a Florida redneck who is an expert on orchids.

Adaptation. does very well in the beginning, despite some serious pacing problems. While the film focuses on the difficulty of translating a book about ideas and emotions into a film - i.e. not adding characters and/or attempting to have contrived plot devices - it works well. Even as Susan works on writing some of the compelling lines Charlie gets hooked on, the narrative flows. In the beginning of the film, Adaptation. is a movie about nothing about writing a film about nothing.

And it's slow. It's dreadfully slow, in fact. That works for a little while, when focusing on Charlie, but not when the attention shifts to Susan and John. Alas, the pace does not pick up in those moments.

Had the film remained a film about nothing, that could have been fine. It could have endured as a film about the struggle to write and even been intriguing to non-writers.

Unfortunately, about halfway through the film, Adaptation. becomes obsessed with the conventions of movie-making and all of the cliches and stereotypes of the typical Hollywood film. It is at this point in the movie that Adaptation. surrenders all of its reasonable and plausible premises and degenerates into what it hates. That is, Kaufman becomes disappointed with the conventions of writing a film personified in Robert McKee. These conventions are such things as the importance of plot, the lack of voiceovers and the "standards" like the car chase, the moral at the end, and the use of a popular song in a film.

Adaptation. seeks to make a satire of these conventions in the latter half of the film and as a result it becomes both snobby and ridiculous. In attempting to mock the establishment, Adaptation. sinks into it, becoming the worst cliche of all. This film is roughly equivalent to the upper class intellectual who despises sports in their social circles and then sneaks away to play football (note: not squash) on the weekends. It's hypocritical when it attempts to be clever and ultimately this film lets us down by sacrificing the characters and ideals of the beginning for the quick fix the end provides.

The only redeeming aspect of this film is the acting. Nicolas Cage plays Charlie wonderfully. Cage also plays the somewhat pointless Donald well and quite differently. Cage is a fine actor here. Meryl Streep and Tilda Swinton are both wonderful as Susan and Valerie. The scene stealer is Chris Cooper, who plays John Laroche. Cooper deserved the Golden Globe Award he won last week for playing Laroche. Fans of "American Beauty" will remember Cooper as the militant marine next door, Colonel Fitts. Here he plays a very different, far more alive character and he does it quite well.

Unfortunately, even the acting cannot save this film. What it tries to mock pretentiously, it becomes in the last act. So even when we recognize that it is mocking the phenomenon of the stylized film industry, when drugs and guns come into play, it tries to play it seriously and it is impossible for the viewer to accept the abrupt about face. It results in the film ceasing to mock bad films and it instead becomes one.

Ultimately, this is a terribly slow film. I mean dreadfully. I felt like the film was at least three and a half hours long and was shocked to learn that it was, in actuality 114 minutes. And keep in mind, I was looking forward to this film.

For other reality-bending films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Inception
Sucker Punch

3/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Reviews Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Nicholas Cage Runs From Being The Next Wicker Man In The Wicker Man!

The Good: Good cast
The Bad: Terrible acting, Predictable plot, Hammy, hammy acting, Nothing stellar in character
The Basics: While The Wicker Man starts with an intriguing hook, it quickly degenerates into Nicholas Cage running around screaming. Not worth your time.


No sooner had I recovered from my disappointment from watching Pulse than I found myself subjected to The Wicker Man, the 2006 remake of the 1973 screenplay by Anthony Shaffer. Reviewing The Wicker Man brought instantly to mind the exchange between C-3P0 and Han Solo in the middle of Star Wars: A New Hope, when R2-D2 is playing a game against Chewbacca. Solo advises R2-D2 to let Chewbacca win, to which C-3P0 declares, "No one worries about upsetting a droid." "That's because a droid don't tear your arms off when he loses," Solo responds. Watching The Wicker Man, all I could think was "No one worries about upsetting a Wiccan."

Edward Malus, a motorcycle cop in California, assists a mother and daughter on the highway when a truck collides with their car, killing both. Placed on the sick list, Edward works to get his nerves back and receives an intriguing letter from his former fiance in the mail from the station. This leads Edward to an island off Washington to search for his ex-fiance's daughter who may or may not exist, may or may not be dead and the viewer may or (let's not kid ourselves, this is the option that counts) may not care about.

The first five minutes of The Wicker Man are the best in the movie, being the most exciting, intriguing, well acted and well directed. During the first five minutes, Nicholas Cage is Edward Malus, beat cop. We believe him, he is a character, we care. After Edward journeys to Summersisle, the movie quickly degenerates into a film one would expect to see parodied in Scary Movie 5. Everything begins to break down. In fact, there is a precise moment when Nicholas Cage is running through a field of bees that I was watching the movie and was forced to acknowledge it was Nicholas Cage (not Edward) running through the field.

This disconnect where the actor falls out of character intensifies as Cage begins to yell at virtually every woman on the island. Edward is transformed from a quiet, introspective "law and order" guy to a screaming maniac and it doesn't fit the character. But it's easy to see Nicholas Cage in this in that we've seen him play angry characters before. As he yells and runs around, the sense that he is acting becomes lost to the idea that Nicholas Cage is on screen.

Sadly, while Cage breaks character from mild-mannered to freak, the rest of the cast is not graced with genuine character to begin with. The Wicker Man is populated by truly great actresses, though this is not a movie that exhibits the talents of any one of them. Ellen Burstyn, second billed, appears rather late in the movie as Sister Summersisle. Burstyn portrayed a wonderful, strong female character in one of my favorite movies, The Spitfire Grill (reviewed here!) and I recently saw her in Requiem For A Dream. In The Wicker Man, Burstyn exhibits none of her talents. In fact, Burstyn is playing Louise Fletcher as Sister Summersisle. Burstyn sounds and acts like Fletcher (best known as Nurse Ratchet in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest).

Similarly, Frances Conroy, who earned my respect for her solemn, quietly desperate portrayal of Ruth Fisher in Six Feet Under (reviewed here!) is knocked further off her pedestal for appearing in this drecht. As with her performance in Catwoman (reviewed here!), Conroy is stuck in the role of "wise crone" and her part is simply an archetype role being filled. There is nothing genuine or distinctive about the character of Dr. Moss or Conroy's portrayal of her.

There is not another single actress in The Wicker Man who impresses the viewer. All of the castmembers play generic tree-hugging women who are ready to engage in human sacrifice to appease their deity. This part of the plot seems especially silly in this day in age and writer-director Neil LaBute seems to have no problem with making women look ridiculous and infantile or with mocking wicca.

On that front, I return to my comment from A New Hope. Wicca is an ancient religion and while it is not the mainstream religion of the United States, its practitioners deserve the same basic respect that we give people who practice Christianity, Judaism, Deism, Scientology, Hinduism or any other of the hundreds of religions out there. Somewhen it became chic to mock wicca and witchcraft and horror movies have a tendency to exploit that. The Wicker Man is an especially ugly interpretation of arcane Celtic-Wiccan religions and what offends me is the double standard our society tolerates. When Kevin Smith released Dogma, he received death threats. The Wicker Man portrays wiccans (and women in general!) as a hyperbole of brainless and/or bloodthirsty and nothing happens.

Oh yeah, that's because wiccan's don't tear your arms off when they lose.

Sigh.

The Wicker Man is a horror film that is not scary nor entertaining. The performances are almost universally bland and none of the characters have . . . well, character. This movie is not worth your time. It wasn't truly worth mine to write about it.

For other movies with Nicholas Cage, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Sorcerer's Apprentice
Kick-Ass
G-Force
The Family Man
Snake Eyes

2.5/10

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

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

It Takes A Lot Of Flack: The Family Man Is Sappy And Predictable, But Worthwhile.

The Good: Acting, Writing, Directing
The Bad: Pacing, Somewhat predictable
The Basics: The Family Man is a good film, though the pacing is choppy and the idea is hardly original.


The Family Man is a surprisingly good film given the rather overdone nature of the plot. It's pretty much your basic "what if you had a chance to see the consequences of one of your major decisions from the other perspective" plot. We watch the film with the basic understanding that we have an idea of what will happen: the protagonist will see the other perspective and be affected by it. I watched The Family Man on DVD and before watching it, I read the "production notes" on the film, it said that film seeks not to make a judgment, saying which decision was right or wrong, but rather illustrate how they were simply different decisions. While the film almost explicitly states that, it doesn't live up to it and that's probably the only real disappointment of the film.

Jack Campbell was offered a job in London in 1987. His partner, Kate Reynolds, had a job still in the States. So, Jack got on a plane intending to be gone for a year. Thirteen years later, he's successful and alone and he's offered, against his will, the opportunity to see the consequence of the decision to leave. Jack finds himself married to Kate and with two children, living in suburbia. Jack takes time getting used to new friends, a new job (he goes from upper management to tire salesman), and a new car. He doesn't appear nearly as shocked as one might suspect. From then on, he experiences life as a father and tire salesman until his "glimpse" ends.

The strength of the film is in its writing. While The Story of Us (reviewed here!) was made annoying by loud, long fights that took up most of the film, The Family Man is enhanced by a tension in the romance between Jack and Kate. They have some disagreements and they are emotional. The writing on those exchanges of dialogue reads as very real. Jack is surrounded by people that sound like real people. His sudden change in status is mostly realistic. Despite his flamboyant anniversary celebration with his wife, there's a moment when he must forego an $800 bottle of wine and instead get "red wine, by the glass" and that moment is quite genuine.

Films like this rely on the strength of their characters. The only character flaw here is that it's never explained what went wrong the first time through. That is, if Jack was supposed to be gone for only a year, what happened in his relationship with Kate in that year that ended up ruining it? That's never explained and it makes the end of the film quite hard to swallow. Jack and Kate, otherwise, are very well defined. They work. The peripheral characters do enough.

The weakness of the film is in its pacing more than anything else. The nature of the film makes it difficult to do something truly new or original and while The Family Man has moments where it seems to accomplish just that, but then it - for one reason or another - fails to live up to its potential. So, the beginning goes at an appropriate pace, it has a strong middle, a terribly slow late middle and then a well-paced (if thematically unsatisfying) end. This means that the film does not flow organically. In the end, that - more than any plot points - ruins the film consistency. When a film doesn't flow, it ruins the experience.

In this case, The Family Man suffers from pacing issues. It doesn't suffer much because of the acting, writing and the view of the film. I was surprised by how good the directing was. The film looks good, the camera angles flatter the movement, for the most part. A satisfying, if not extraordinary, film.

For other films with intriguing family dilemmas, please visit my reviews of:
The Spitfire Grill
Ordinary People
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

7/10

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

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


| | |

Eyes Gone Blind: Snake Eyes Blinks!

The Good: Carla Gugino, First half hour
The Bad: Second half, Lack of consistent characterization, Unsatistfying ending
The Basics: An excellent setup leads into a terrible disappointment when Snake Eyes attempts to be clever but instead negates all real characterization.


It's the unfortunate film that begins so well as to be called engrossing and then degenerates into something silly and unprovacative. Yet, such is what you have with Snake Eyes. It is not, as the video box suggests entitled "Cage Snake Eyes" which is as it appears on the box, movie poster, etc. It seems like they're selling Nicholas Cage. Well, his character is bought, perhaps he is as well.

Cage plays Rick Santoro, a mostly-corrupt cop who gets jazzed about fight night. Rick has an old time friend Kevin Dunne, who is a Commander in the army and is set the task of guarding the Secretary of Defense. After betting heavily, Rick goes to the prize fight to watch the heavyweight champion duke it out with a competitor. Kevin, apparently concerned with a security risk, takes off after a redhead. Moments later, Kirkland is shot and Rick has to piece together what happened. Rick's main lead is a woman who approached Kirkland moments before the shooting, Julia.

The problem lies in how everything goes from there. It's not too revealing to suggest that Gary Senise needs to get cast as something other than a villain. The problem is, it's not revealing anything. It's not a surprise. Gary plays Kevin as too perfect, it's set up to be a surprise that he's involved. The problem with that is that it doesn't read as real. Kevin and Rick have a real bond. Or so it appears. Rick doesn't appear nearly as traumatized as he ought to considering the set up in the beginning.

There's something to be said for the idea that two people who are close can't change without the other knowing it. The film sets up their relationship as one such relationship and then it doesn't realize it. Kevin comes off as too true for how far he falls. Sadly, Rick's rise to heroism makes more sense than Kevin's decline into villainy.

The only great acting in the film comes from Carla Gugino. Her character is the most consistent, the most real and the best acted. Julia seems giving and kind and concerned. She is exactly the conscientious citizen that does rise up to fight corruption when she learns of it. Carla Gugino acts perfectly for the role, adding more than simply an innocent face, but genuine confusion and realistic movement to a person out of place in a world where law enforcement and criminals lay in the same bed.

Sadly, even Carla's wonderful acting is not enough to recommend this film. If you ever catch it on television, set a timer. When you hit thirty minutes, turn it off and make up your own ending. Trust me; it's better that way.

For other works featuring Carla Gugino, please check out my reviews of:
Sucker Punch
Watchmen

2.5/10

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

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


| | |

One Disney Remake Too Many: The Sorcerer's Apprentice Is An Overblown Special Effects Film!

The Good: The movie looks good, Good casting
The Bad: Terrible character development, Predictable plot, Some very lame humor
The Basics: Another disappointing live-action Disney endeavor, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is, unfortunately, nothing terribly new.


When I saw the first preview trailer for Disney's The Sorcerer's Apprentice, I was exceptionally excited. No, I'm not a fan of weak-concept movies or remakes of animated works as live action films or even a particular fan of many of the works of Disney Films in recent years. Instead, the first shots I saw made me think that DC Comics had pulled off a real coup and managed to make a Green Lantern film without me ever finding out about it. Having returned from an early screening of it, I find myself wishing that it had been a Green Lantern movie. (Not going to happen through Disney; they own Marvel Comics now.)

But on to The Sorcerer's Apprentice. This is the latest in a series of movies based upon shorter works or works in other media that Disney owns or has bought the movie rights to. This is a fleshing out, live action, of the idea in Fantasia of a wizard taking on an apprentice. The idea it taken to a more extreme level and the result is one that would not feel quite so tired had it not been for recent films like The Vampire's Assistant (which, ironically, The Sorcerer's Apprentice has a lot in common with, including the comedic aspects), Percy Jackson And The Olympians: The Lightning Thief and even Kick-Ass (reviewed here!). The result is a family-friendly special-effects driven film that feels like it was a board meeting's response to seeing the market niche being filled elsewhere. The Sorcerer's Apprentice comes late to the market and is likely to be one of the bigger box office flops as the young people to whom the film is geared will have much, much better options for movies they can watch (or sneak into).

Maxim Horvath is gathering power, enlisting powerful evil wizards and magicians in his bid to take over the world. When the popular illusionist Drake Stonea joins his side, the forces of good, in the form of Balthazar Blake begin to feel truly beleaguered. Blake finds a college student with an aptitude for chemistry and physics studying locally and he impresses him into service as his assistant. At first, Dave Stutler is freaked out and unconvinced of the realities of the magical world, but soon his training is under way and he has multiple example of magic and of Maxim Horvath's desire to stop Balthazar and now him. Dave also realizes that magic may well be the way to the heart of Becky, a fellow student he has a crush on.

But soon Horvath and his forces are unleashing magical monsters on Manhattan and only Balthazar and Dave stand in his way. As they battle through dragons, animated statues and magical forces, Dave learns to use his new powers and he becomes the best chance the forces of good have to stop (or distract) Horvath from taking over.

Instead of my usual rant about how Dave's love interest is a twiggy blonde chick (in this case played by Teresa Palmer, who I have not seen in any other works), I'll compliment director Jon Turteltaub on his casting. Jay Baruchel plays Dave with a perfectly convincing quality. Dave is nervous, uncertain and often clumsy and Baruchel has played that masterfully in other films. He has not lost his touch for The Sorcerer's Apprentice. Similarly, Alfred Molina has played monolithic villains before and his portrayal of Maxim Horvath is easily within his range and ability. He does not disappoint as the movie's antagonist.

Unfortunately, like many Disney films, Horvath is never made into a truly real character. Horvath is stereotypically evil with no real distinguishing characteristics that make him vital or interesting. Instead, he is the villain with the typically villainous desire to take over, with no real clear agenda or reason why he wants to be an overlord. The result is a feeling that we are watching yet another tired movie where the heroes are not so exceptional because the villain is not terribly distinct.

This, sadly, plays out poorly for The Sorcerer's Apprentice because while Nicholas Cage does heroic just fine when he wants to, the disheveled hero has been done to death by him. Cage as Balthazar becomes an excuse for much exposition and while he is given the special effects power to do magic, the viewer never truly feels like he is a credible sorcerer. In other words, Balthazar never quite seems smart or able enough to control the powers he is trying to make Dave disciplined enough to handle. The result is that while Cage does fine in the role, the role never seems terribly credible.

Add to that, writers Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, and Matt Lopez never seem to miss a joke that falls flat. From Dave critiquing Blake's fashion sense to the obvious hormone-driven references that are likely to go over the heads of younger audiences, The Sorcerer's Apprentice is largely not funny. The lines tend to resonate more as catch-phrases than as flowing dialogue within the context of the movie. This is NOT the next Harry Potter franchise and those who are looking for a good coming-of-age story will find that is sublimated to ridiculous humor from the slapstick to the witless verbal jokes.

What keeps The Sorcerer's Apprentice from the absolute bottom of the barrel are the effects. In The Sorcerer's Apprentice, the effects are special enough to be engaging and for those who have not seen the trailers yet, they look better on the big screen and Turteltaub smartly has the transitions move in realistic time, instead of the super-accelerated way so many special effects films try to dazzle their audiences with.

That said, at the end of the day, The Sorcerer's Apprentice truly is just a live-action special-effects flick with a weak, predictable, overdone story that is mucked up by poor writing. Film fans can do much, much better than this, even during Summer Blockbuster Season.

For other films featuring Alfred Molina, please check out my reviews of:
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Wonder Woman
Magnolia
Raiders Of The Lost Ark

4/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for a complete listing of all I have reviewed by clicking here!

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

Even If You Haven't Seen The Preview Trailer, You've Seen G-Force. (We All Have)

The Good: Moments of performance by the live-action actors
The Bad: Not funny, Not clever, Predictable plot, 3-D effects are unimpressive.
The Basics: Predictable, boring, lacking in humor and with erratic special effects, "G-Force" is a Disney failure not worth seeing (especially in overpriced 3-D)!


Back when I first saw G-Force, I thought there was some irony to it appearing in 3-D; that same week was thw week the masterful Coraline was released on DVD. Coraline was an amazing use of the three-dimensional technology and the spectacle of the film was thrilling and added to the story by making the fantastic seem even more real. Unfortunately, G-Force does not make nearly as good a use of the 3-D technology as Coraline did. In fact, it is hard to see how G-Force got greenlit.

Right upfront, though, it is worth noting that given the choice between catching G-Force in standard theatrical presentation or shelling out the additional money for the 3-D showings, this is one not worth paying the extra bucks for. The 3-D effects are not impressive and they tend to be wasted on gags that have little change in resonance with the standard 2-D version of the film. The story and humor are not enhanced in any significant way by the 3-D effects and the lack of overall quality to the movie is not redeemed by the effects either.

Part of an elite group of government agents, the G-Force, a squad of small mammals who have been specially trained to get into areas humans either cannot get into or the government needs deniability in. The project is seen as a pariah by most of the intelligence community. Despite the goofy antics of the guinea pigs Darwin, Juarez, and Blaster and their technical supports Mooch (a fly) and Speckles (a literal mole), the team trains remarkably well and the group is given an assignment, which is to stop Leonard Saber. Saber's plan is to destroy the world using common household appliances which will run amok and kill everyone.

Despite Saber's plan coming to the attention of the G-Force, the government shuts the project down and the guinea pigs are sent to a pet store. There they meet Hurley and Buckey and find themselves limited. Mooch and the human handler, Ben, work to get the G-Force back in action as Saber launches his plan.

Lately, it seems like perhaps a writer's strike might be a good thing, or perhaps a cleaning of the WGA to allow some fresh new talent in. Disney, frequently creatively stifled, dies a little bit more with this live-action/CG-effect blend movie which is so unoriginal even children are unlikely to be surprised or interested in it. The characters are entirely types - leader (Darwin), muscle (Juarez), hapless geek for comic relief (Blaster) - and none of them come to life with any realism that makes the audience care even a whiff about them.

The computer-generated effects, which dominate the movie given that the film focuses on the CG-animals, primarily the guinea pigs, are average at best. Like many CG-driven movies, the film loses a lot of credibility with the simple act of lighting. Many of the moments in the film that could be harrowing are gutted of emotional resonance - in addition to the viewer not caring about the characters - by the fact that the animals are obviously computer generated. The most frequent tell is that the characters are lit as if from all angles in scenes with an obvious light source. The attention to detail surrounding realism of light and movement is not something that can be suspended in a live-action/CG-effect blend. The whole point of the live action portions - mostly revolving around the G-Force animals interacting with Ben or Leonard Saber - is to create an alternate reality where talking, high-functioning animals are real. We can suspend our disbelief for the basic premise, but when the ridiculous dancing gets old (isn't there an internet site where we can see hamsters dancing for free?!) and the wisecracks fall flat, the fact that the supposedly real animals that the humans are working with or against pull the viewer out of the movie.

That said, there are no real good wisecracks in the movie and the prevalence of everything predictable is problematic. There are the obvious romantic subplots, both between the G-Force members and their handlers and they distract from any real sense of menace in the movie. Sure, it is hard to say there is real menace when the villain wants to take over the world using appliances, but when the movie loses focus on that, it becomes a cheap receptacle for animal humor bathrooming jokes that will not entertain any audiences, save the most unenlightened children.

The plot is similarly predictable and in true Disney tradition, the film both ends without any sense of consequence or ramification and neatly sets up a potential sequel or franchise. Disney yet-again reinforces the idea that no matter how harrowing the circumstances might be, teamwork will get everyone through the crisis and everyone will emerge on the other side unscathed, save the villain. Director Hoyt Yeatman drew the short straw for a directoral debut and given that the script was weak to begin with, the poor execution of special effects does not bode well for Yeatman's career.

Strangely, though, this dismal project attracted some real talent. Tracy Morgan, Steve Buscemi, Will Arnett, and Bill Nighy all lend their talents to G-Force and in most cases they are wasted. Morgan's voicework as Blaster makes him seem like an over-the-top parody of himself and as impolitic as it might seem, his role seems designed to keep the urban flavor of some of the G-Force wisecracks from appearing to simply be the work of Caucasian poseurs. Similarly, Penelope Cruz's voicework as Juarez does little other than perpetrate the stereotype of the saucy Latina.

By contrast, the live action performers, primarily Arnett, Nighy, and Zach Galifianakis are surprisingly good. Nighy is stuck in a monolithic role of the over-the-top villain and Arnett's sense of comic timing is wasted as Kip. Galifianakis creates the perception that his presence in this film is more inspired casting than great acting. Galifianakis, who shone brightly in The Hangover plays essentially the same character in G-Force. As Ben, Galifianakis plays the quiet, hapless genius as opposed to the hapless idiot, but he hits many of the same beats as he did in the adult film in this one. But what all three live-action principle actors do well is work opposite their virtual counterparts. Arnett especially seems to have mastered eyelines and acting opposite nothing.

This is not enough to recommend sitting through G-Force or subjecting one's children to it. Now on DVD, one suspects it is one that Disney will either leave on the shelves in perpetuity or stick back in the vault in hopes that people forget they ever created such a cinematic travesty. Stay in and watch Coraline instead. That's what I'm going to do to clean my palate after this cagedropping.

For other Disney films, please check out my reviews of:
Tangled
Oceans
Toy Story 3

2.5/10

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

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



| | |

Fun But Unsettling, Kick-Ass Is Still A Winner.

The Good: Good pacing, Generally decent sense of realism, Dark tone
The Bad: Seems too familiar/predictable in places.
The Basics: A violent, action-packed super hero film that has a disturbing level of realistic violence and terrible language, Kick-Ass holds its own as an atypical hero film.


It might seem weird that as a fan of the super hero genre, I find myself recommending remarkably few super hero films enthusiastically. Sure, the last two years, my favorite movies of the year have been in the genre, with my sense that there is a real sense of injustice in the awards process where Watchmen (click here for that review!) was not even nominated for any. So, with the new film Kick-Ass, it might seem surprising that I opened myself up to the potentials of the super hero film again. But I did and it was (mostly) worth it.

Kick-Ass is best analogized as Hancock without the super powers or the pretense. Whereas Hancock tried to explore the consequences of a super hero with real failings living in the otherwise very real world, Kick-Ass explores the consequences of people – mostly young people – getting involved in vigilante actions when they have no superlative abilities. It is not just a super hero origin story, but it is - in many ways – the entire arc of the super hero and it is one that is entertaining, but not for the faint of heart.

Dave is a pretty normal teenager who enjoys doing the usual teenage guy things like reading comic books and trying to pursue girls who are not actually interested in him. One night, he decides it’s stupid that there are no super heroes in the world and he sets out to become one. The result is that he gets his butt kicked, bones broken (graphically) and he spends quite a bit of time in the hospital recovering. Even so, when Dave recovers, he suits up again and goes out armed with only improvised nun-chucks which allow him to rescue a needy person from a group of three assailants. Filmed in the process, he declares himself to be the new crimefighter Kick-Ass and he sets up a MySpace page to try to save those in need.

What he attracts, however, is the attention of the father-daughter vigilante group, Big Daddy and Hit-Girl. Big Daddy has set his sights on ridding the city of the notorious criminal Frank D’Amico, who believes that Kick-Ass has been thwarting some of his attempts to smuggle. D’Amico’s son, Chris takes on a super hero persona of Red Mist to lure out Kick-Ass, Hit-Girl and Big Daddy to try to rid the city of the vigilantes.

Despite the appropriately cheesy super hero names, Kick-Ass is surprisingly real and the film’s graphic violence reflects that. This is a ridiculously bloody movie in parts and the viewer has an uncomfortable sense of watching violence done to people often too powerless to save themselves. This makes it far darker than the initial previews made the movie seem and those looking for a light popcorn movie are not going to find it here.

Part of the reason for that is that it is unsettling to see Hit-Girl in virtually every scene she is in. The eleven year-old crime fighter has been toughened by doing and defending herself from violence. As a result, she swears like there is no tomorrow and the effect is undeniably disturbing. However, even though hearing a girl so young use words I never would as an adult made me cringe, it is hard to argue with what writers Mark Vaughn and Jane Goldman are doing. Illustrating how violence begets violence – D’Amico’s men getting killed spirals into a climactic attack from Red Mist and D’Amico himself – the writers (Vaughn also is the movie’s director) illustrate that stopping criminals by using their methods often leaves them in a similar, undesirable, mindset. Despite the fact that young people populate the film, this is in no way a children’s movie.

Kick-Ass also works because the starkness of the world it creates. Dave’s first attempt to rise up as a costumed hero has painful results and as his body is broken and bloodied, it is hard not to feel like one is watching a real mugging take place. This both stirs the fear and the empathy in the viewer. Dave’s desire to rid the world of even petty crime becomes perfectly understandable and the viewer wants to like him. As well, the movie does not resort to too many of the obvious conceits. Sure, Dave has an interest in a girl at school, Katie, but the movie abandons developing a ridiculous romantic subplot too far and instead focuses on Dave’s life as Kick-Ass and the real risks that entails.

Surprisingly good in Kick-Ass are Nicholas Cage (it’s been so long since I could write that!) and the young actors, Chloe Grace Moretz and Aaron Johnson. Johnson might initially seem to be just the product of good casting as a gangly teenager, but he pulls off the role by speaking of his character’s purpose with a determination that still has the optimism of one untouched by violence and a force of an adult. Johnson has great realism in his movements, which make many of his fight sequences seem anything but choreographed and there are moments when he takes a hit where he sells the moment perfect.

Similarly, Cage and Moretz play off one another with a realistic chemistry that make them truly seem like father and daughter. Cage has a worldly quality to him that fits Big Daddy perfectly and Moretz has an anger she portrays that never seems over-the-top, but is almost entirely troubling. In fact, the only scene Moretz truly fails to sell is in her final moments on screen and I’ll not ruin the reason for the problem with that.

Those looking for a good super hero film, even in the wake of Iron Man 2, will find a lot to enjoy in Kick-Ass, so long as they are not expecting bright, pastel fun. This is a dark world and Kick-Ass seeks to show what happens when common people stand up in it.

For other super hero films, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight
Wonder Woman
Blade: Trinity

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here for a concise list of all I have reviewed (updated daily!).

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