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.
| | |

As Bad As One Might Suspect: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice Belabors Set-Up And Spectacle Over Substance!

The Good: Moments of Henry Cavill's performance, Moments of plot concept for the conspiracy
The Bad: Dull, Preposterous, Overlong, Ridiculous characterization, Terrible writing
The Basics: Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice sucks.


When it comes to blockbuster movies, there are few movies I can think of that disappointed me more when I went back to them than Man Of Steel (reviewed here!). Seeing Man Of Steel on the big screen, early, it was a real thrill . . . but time, distance, and rewatching the movie truly lessened the film for me. So, when I first sat down to Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I was very concerned that history would either repeat itself (and I would be too lenient on the film) or I would over-compensate and be overly hard on the movie. The latter was a real concern for me from the moment Gal Godot was cast as Wonder Woman, as I have long advocated for Anne Hathaway for the role (check out that article here!).

After watching Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice, I am finally ready to write a review the way my wife has often ask that I do. My wife hates it when I waste my time writing long, well-conceived, complicated analyses of products and events that are very simply bad. Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is simple and bad . . . but most of it is not the fault of the performers or even director Zack Snyder. The problems with Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice all start with the writing.

Conceptually, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice tries to do too much, so it does none of it particularly well. The film is a belabored set-up to the forthcoming Justice League film and the scene that features Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) effectively introducing the other three members of the League (Green Lantern is not included!) stops the movie dead. It would have been better as a post-credits scene than a component of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice.

Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice starts as a potential reflection on the nature of Superman and his role in the world. After Metropolis was virtually destroyed in Man Of Steel, Superman has become a divisive concept; a messianic figure and a potential threat to humanity for his autonomous, unaccountable, nature. That concept is blended poorly with Bruce Wayne's desire to reign in Superman, as he witnessed the carnage in Metropolis 18 months prior and experiences yet another loss in his life as a result. Rather than staying focused on either concept, Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice becomes mired in a painfully simplistic conspiracy put together by Lex Luthor.

Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is, arguably, the worst interpretation of the character ever and while actor Jesse Eisenberg is taking a lot of flack for it, he deserves remarkably little blame. Lex Luthor in Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is written as The Joker. Eisenberg plays him as appropriately twitchy and unsettled and I just kept waiting for the movie to take a clever turn what would have made it explicit that Lex Luthor was the Joker (elements like the Polaroid photos of Martha Kent seemed like foreshadowing in that regard). That moment never comes and instead of Lex Luthor being a genius who is actually motivated by the desire to save the world from its dependence on Superman, he is just a non-committed, rich version of The Joker.

Lois Lane and Clark Kent's relationship is portrayed as simplistic and bland. When Doomsday finally pops up, it looks like leftover footage of Cave Trolls from The Lord Of The Rings. And it is hard not to imagine Joss Whedon cringing as Wonder Woman finally makes her big screen debut as a half-rate sidekick who ultimately appears as muscle (virtually nothing of her cerebral nature is present)(Whedon having famously written a pitch or spec. script for Wonder Woman more than a decade ago, only to have it go nowhere).

Despite the spectacle (though most of it is surprisingly dark), simplistic and bland is an apropos description of Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice. When the biggest geek-out factor is recognizing actors (on screen and voices) from Watchmen (reviewed here!) in the film, the movie has serious problems. More could be said, but it would be pointless: bad is bad and Batman V Superman: Dawn Of Justice is bad.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Suicide Squad
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 - 1997
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

2.5/10

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

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Freakish Childhood Makes One Want To Be Running With Scissors Far And Away!

The Good: My gosh, it finally ends!, Moments of acting
The Bad: Much of the acting, The characters, Lack of plot, Plodding pace, Tone, Message, DVD extras
The Basics: In an overrated and terrible movie, Augusten Burroughs relates his traumatic childhood spent in the company of a crazy adopted family.


Augusten Burroughs is a boy growing up in the 1970s with a poet mother who desperately dreams of stardom and a father who is an alcoholic. Augusten's mother, Deirdre, soon divorces Norman at the recommendation of her psychiatrist, Dr. Finch. Finch encourages Deirdre's selfish behavior and Deirdre soon abandons Augusten to Dr. Finch and his family while she goes off to explore poetry and lesbianism.

Augusten, then, finds himself trapped within the hell that is Dr. Finch's household. Surrounded by children who poop behind the Christmas tree (which has been up for years), a mother-figure who eats dog food, a disco-dancing girl and a religious zealot, Augusten soon falls in with a schizophrenic older man who might just kill them all. Augusten works to survive by writing in a journal, becoming truant from school, and limiting his exposure to the craziness of his new family.

Augusten Burroughs, sadly, is not a fictional construct. The lone bonus feature I could bare to sit through (there were three featurettes and a bunch of previews on the DVD release of this film) introduced the author Augusten Burroughs who sits in denial telling the viewer how he survived and overcame his crappy childhood, which Running With Scissors is a memoir of. I write "sits in denial" because almost thirty years after the events that shaped his life from his childhood, he is still working through it by creating a movie. Regardless of what Burroughs declares in his on-screen endorsement of the film, this is not a celebration of a universal struggle that is immortalized on film.

Running With Scissors fails utterly because it is so insular, specific, and disturbing as to rob it of any real entertainment value. Some years ago, I wrote one of my first reviews on the book Lilliane: Resurrection Of The Daughter (reviewed here!) where I postulated that what made the book so pointless and difficult to read was that it captured reality too well. In the case of Running With Scissors, Burroughs and screenwriter-director Ryan Murphy create something that may accurately recreate the reality of Augusten's youth but is so outside the normal, interesting or entertaining as to be painful to watch.

As this film plodded on - the pacing is disastrously slow - scene after scene was agonizing to watch. After a slow start wherein Norman and Deirdre break up, partially at the behest of the quack Dr. Finch who insists he must observe the couple for five hours a day in order to save their marriage, Augusten and the viewer become condemned to a series of slow deliveries that agonizingly draw out a pointless experience that results in nothing so satisfying as a laugh.

Whatever niche Running With Scissors is trying to fit into, it fails. It's not funny, though moments of the film have the elements to be horrifying in a way humor can be when one steps away from the joke and thinks about what has actually happened or been said. It's not comedic, it's not so much dramatic as it is dull. That is to say that great character drama has a tension to it that absent from Running With Scissors. It does not take long before the viewer simply does not care about Augusten or his fate.

The reason is simple; Augusten is not a compelling character. All due respect to the real Augusten Burroughs (if this is a strict memoir, wow, t.f.b.), Augusten Burroughs from Running With Scissors is dull, uninspired and uninspiring. He is a youth who never takes control of his own destiny. Instead, he takes all the sh*t that is flung at him and he accepts it as the way it is. It's ironic because my mentor and I were debating social mobility this past weekend and after seeing Running With Scissors, I'm almost forced to concede the point that people trap themselves far too often within their own hells. In this context, Augusten is never so motivated by all of the factors that torment him to actually make the changes he would like, that he needs. The result, unsurprisingly, is that (author in reality) Augusten Burroughs is still processing his crappy childhood twenty years later. Condemning the viewer to share his crappy childhood is not entertaining and it is not revealing of the human condition.

Similarly, Deirdre is wholly unsympathetic and unempathetic. She is played by Annette Bening with little differentiation between Deirdre and her more compelling character from American Beauty (reviewed here!). Bening is a quieter form of crazy in Running With Scissors, but much of the performance feels the same or similar.

At this point, I believe it is relevant to compare Running With Scissors with a film that has a similar sensibility to it, but was vastly better. If Running With Scissors is at the bottom of the scale of the dysfunctional family drama, the foil movie is The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!). The Royal Tenenbaums tells the story of the three children of Royal Tenenbaum as their adult lives collapse and his estranged wife looks to remarry. Much of the movie, like Running With Scissors happens in the confines of one house and neighborhood but what The Royal Tenenbaums does well is create characters that are empathetic. They are motivated by their pasts and their quirks embody their reactions to their stimuli. The assemblage of Running With Scissors is portrayed as crazy and esoteric for the sake of weird and shocking. So, for example, Gwyneth Paltrow plays Hope Finch in Running With Scissors, a religious zealot whose origins and motivations are never explained. She is crazy for the sake of crazy. Ironically, Paltrow also appears in The Royal Tenenbaums and even with years since I last saw it, I can easily recall that her character in that film was depressed and dysfunctional because her adopted father treated her different from his biological children, her plays had fizzled commercially and her marriage to a listless psychoanalyst had encouraged her to renew her addictions. There is nothing so deep from any of the principles of Running With Scissors.

As I watched this film last night, I was considering that this is Gay Pride Month and films like Running With Scissors were among the assemblage of flicks that just didn't help the cause. Deirdre, the character not whatever real poet exists outside the film, is a weak-willed doped up mother whose irresponsibility, drug use and ability to be influenced by Dr. Finch lead her to a witless exploration of lesbianism that is almost as canned as Augusten's own homosexuality. Augusten, getting a leap on his sexuality by having sex with his older brother-figure, Neil Bookman, a schizophrenic also adopted by Dr. Finch, is an entirely uninspiring role model for homosexuals of any age.

Granted, gays and lesbians - like ANY population - come in a wide array of heights, weights, skin colors, hair colors, and states of health (physical and mental). I recall going to a LGB community meeting when in high school and being mildly surprised to see a blind person there. Yes, it opened my eyes - pun intended - to the whole idea that the LGB community truly was like any other when I saw a blind lesbian. As a matter of gay pride, Running With Scissors is just abysmal and it opens the community up to a plethora of the worst, most stereotypical, arguments that most of us would like to see buried.

So, for example, throughout the movie, there is a strong incestuous relationship between Augusten and his mother, Deirdre. He brushes her hair, fawns over her as she practices poetry reading and emulates her. The film goes so far as to suggest that Augusten knows his mother so intimately as to effectively and realistically role play her when playing doctor with Natalie. As well, the film opens itself up to the tired comparisons of gays as pedophiles when Neil has sexual contact with Augusten when Augusten is fifteen (or less).

As well, all of the gay or lesbian characters in Running With Scissors are either crazy (Neil is schizophrenic), weak-willed (Deirdre's neighbor and lesbian practice toy Fern), opportunistic (Dorothy), idiotic (Augusten's lack of escape initiative can only be traced to innate stupidity) and/or drug addicted (Deirdre is both mentally ill and drug-addicted). As far as seeing characters from the community, Running With Scissors is terrible and frightening to any young people. As well, it showcases only the worst about these people. None of them have anything remotely redeemable about them. The other characters might be crazy, but most are defined by the idea that they are crazy by what they eat (dog food and a long-dead cat, in case you're curious). The most seriously ill characters in this film also happen to be the ones who are gay.

Finally, the problem is exacerbated by the lack of on-screen chemistry between Joseph Cross (Augusten) and Joseph Fiennes (Neil). Cross has more on-screen chemistry with costar Evan Rachel Wood who is relegated to a sisterly role as Natalie. But even more damning than the connection between Wood and Cross is the character interactions between the two. When Augusten becomes most desperate, he calls on Natalie to help him. Somewhere, there's a young hick saying "He's only gay because he's crazy." Sigh.

My point in all this is that Augusten Burroughs and Ryan Murphy create or recreate a story of a boy's witless adventures in growing up where he is pushed around by family members into a situation where he is simply stuck. It's made worse by the negative messages and themes which are so backwards and terrible that if they were happening to any other minorities other than gays and lesbians and the mentally ill, the film would have never been made (make a movie with a black mother eating dog food or a Japanese girl cooking her dead cat for joy and see how quickly the Anti-Defamation groups leap up!). I would say the writers and director ought to feel ashamed, but if I learned anything from Running With Scissors it was that Augusten Burroughs has already been in situations that were shaming enough; it is regrettable that he chose to share his insular and damaged experiences rather than seeking to truly survive them. Running With Scissors simply immortalizes them and it is not worth your time or attention.

For other works with Evan Rachel Wood, check out my takes on:
The Ides Of March
True Blood - Season Three
True Blood - Season Two
Across The Universe
Once And Again - Season Two
Once And Again - Season One
Practical Magic

2/10

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

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

Morning Glory Is The Best, Most Insufferably Predictable, Workplace Dramedy In Years!

The Good: Interesting characters, Decent development and structure, Wonderful acting, Decent DVD bonus features.
The Bad: Utterly predictable on all fronts.
The Basics: Despite being painfully predictable, Morning Glory is a worthwhile and fun film focusing on one plucky producer’s attempt to save a morning television news program, despite her lead anchor’s resistance!


The longer one watches and reviews movies (or television, I suppose), the harder it is to surprise them. For sure, not everything can be innovative, fresh and new, which might be why so many major studios continue to revamp old franchises rather than being accused of making something that would be panned as “derivative.” With romantic comedies and lighter workplace dramas, there have been so many cinematic stories told that it truly is difficult to amaze viewers now. Thus, the success of those types of movies often comes down to the quality of the cast and acting and the quirks that come in the writing from the writer’s sense of style and eloquence.

Morning Glory succeeds for only that reason. Were it not for an impressive cast acting incredibly well and moments where the writing felt fresh (Mike Pomeroy being defined as the third worst person on the planet, for example), Morning Glory would simply be a formulaic nightmare that lacked any charm, originality or reason to watch. As it is, though, Morning Glory has enough going for it, so much so that it is easy to see why Harrison Ford wanted to be a part of it. However, the entirely formulaic nature of the film helps make it clear why so few critics were wowed by the movie.

Becky Fuller works for a small New Jersey television station where she works on the morning show. When she thinks she is being promoted, she is in fact fired and that throws her off track entirely. Despite her mother’s discouragements, Becky continues to pursue a position as a producer and after weeks of trying, she finally lands an interview at IBS. Hired to take over the struggling show “Daybreak,” Becky is hampered by outdated technology and a lecherous, egotistical anchor. After firing her anchor, she determines that the newscaster for whom she has always had respect is still under contract with the network and using a clause in his contract that leverages the balance of his contract against him, Becky manages to get Mike Pomeroy to come do “Daybreak.”

Unfortunately for Becky and Mike’s co-anchor, Colleen, Mike refuses to adapt to the format of morning television. Unwilling to do any piece that he feels is below him, Mike pushes to report real news. But when one of Becky’s stunts involving the weatherman, Ernie, actually shows a tiny ratings bump, Becky sees that the key to getting the audience is sensationalism. As she uses Ernie and Colleen to bring entertaining programming to the morning show, Mike continues to resist, focusing instead on his own quest for a breaking news story. As Becky works to save the show, she tries to balance “Daybreak” with her new relationship with Adam, a man who knows Mike Pomeroy’s eccentricities all too well.

Morning Glory is one of those movies that it is hard for me to start an objective discussion about because I start going into all the things that feel familiar and trite about it – mostly pertaining to the plot and character structure of the film. So, sufficed to say, the film is not only predictable, but it has a very “assembled” feel to it. In other words, the film has very little in the way of frills; the elements that are put into play very early in Morning Glory all come back later on to be paid off. So, for example, Becky’s mother makes a crack in her first scene about how Becky has just been working on the hope that someday, an important executive will call her up and offer her a producing position on the biggest morning show on the air. So, when Becky is called by NBC late in the film, that bit of foreshadowing is played out.

But the problem with being so very critical about how the film is assembled is that some of it, much of it, actually works. Adam’s knowledge of Mike Pomeroy’s drinking habits is not only useful to Becky, it makes sense that he would have become familiar with them in his tenure working with Mike. The scene where Mike Pomeroy cooks a frittata before work not only serves to humanize him to Becky, but it is pretty much meaningless without the callback to it late in the film. As a result, much of Morning Glory feels like a set-up in the first half and the second half is all about paying off the threads laid down. It’s a formula, but it is hard to complain when part of that formula results in people putting down their smartphones and spending more real time together.

Part of the success of Morning Glory (because it does work quite a bit more than it ever fails) comes from the film’s cast and the fact that director Roger Mitchell uses them all in an excellent fashion. Matt Malloy makes Ernie credible in all the ways his character is tormented and Michell uses Ty Burrell for a brief, hilarious, role before getting him off camera before Burrell can change the entire tenor of the film. John Pankow has great physical performances in Morning Glory and one of my new favorites over the past three years, Patrick Wilson, manages to be entirely credible as Adam. He is, in fact, far more believable as an awkward, lovestruck yet frumpy guy than Rachel McAdams is as a woman so busy she doesn’t possibly notice that she is drop-dead gorgeous. Jeff Goldblum is efficient and smart in his scenes as Jerry.

Diana Keaton pretty much reinvented herself in Morning Glory. As Colleen Peck, she plays a journalist who understands how the game is played and works for a fourth place show. Instead of complaining about it, Colleen shows up, does her job and waits for a producer to come along who believes in the concept of “Daybreak” and who might actually want to be there. When Becky Fuller arrives, Colleen quickly realizes that she is the real deal. This leads Keaton to some of her most memorable moments on film as she raps with 50 Cent, plays with animals and is put in a giant sumo costume to go up against a real sumo wrestler. And Keaton plays Colleen as credibly smart and emotionally connected enough to hold her own against Harrison Ford’s Mike Pomeroy.

Well before he played a cranky old man in Cowboys And Aliens (reviewed here!), Harrison Ford played Mike Pomeroy and the role is an exceptionally good one to illustrate Ford’s talents. Harrison Ford does not play Pomeroy as dashing, debonair, or charismatic, which are traits that Ford is usually associated with. Instead, he slouches, scowls and grunts his way through the role and he is so convincing in his grumpy persona that viewers are almost unlikely to buy that he is smart enough, when viewing the promos for Pomeroy joining “Daybreak,” to quip, “What’s in the briefcase? Where am I running to?!” Ford pulls it off, though, and he makes a good arc of Pomeroy’s many barriers peeling away.

Rachel McAdams, however, sells Morning Glory. It is largely her job to convince the viewers that Becky is smart and driven enough to make “Daybreak” work and over the course of the film, she succeeds. She has great on-screen chemistry with both Patrick Wilson and Harrison Ford. Rachel McAdams makes Fuller seem determined and righteous enough to be completely believable.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, Morning Glory has quite a bit to offer viewers. In addition to deleted scenes, there is a rich commentary track with director Roger Michell and the film’s author. The featurettes are entertaining and there are enough bonus features to make viewers feel they are getting a value with the disc.

Ultimately, Morning Glory may not be the most original film, but it presents the known quantities well and is well worth watching for the entertainment of it; Morning Glory is enduringly entertaining and holds up over multiple viewings.

For other works with Rachel McAdams, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Vow
Sherlock Holmes
The Time Traveler’s Wife
Married Life
The Family Stone
Mean Girls

7/10

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

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

One Miserable Character Dominates A Thoroughly Miserable Movie: Young Adult

The Good: The acting
The Bad: Characters, Plot, Unimaginative direction, Writing
The Basics: After months of eagerly looking forward to watching Young Adult, I watch the film and discover . . . it’s an absolute lemon.


I can think of no film that I missed in theaters last year that I wanted to see more than Young Adult. Now that it is out on DVD and Blu-Ray, I managed to get my chance and the truth is, I am left absolutely baffled as to why I wanted to see the film. I cannot think of a movie that has let me down more lately than Young Adult and the feeling of “Why did I want to see this?” truly stems from the fact that there were no good lines in the movie. I do not write with hyperbole here; I cannot think of a single line from the movie that, if I saw it in a preview, I would have excitedly said, “I must see Young Adult!”

And it’s not that I don’t like depressing stories of human suffering - Everything Must Go (reviewed here!) was more enjoyable than Young Adult. I even like independent cinema, as my love of God Bless America (reviewed here!) illustrates. So, I’m left with the conclusion that writer Diablo Cody got lucky. Juno is great, but maybe she truly just had the one work in her; Cody might be as burned out at Mavis Gary and, if that is the case, it would be nice if she no longer troubled us with writing films that assemble intriguing and wonderful casts only to absolutely suck the enjoyment out of watching a movie for us.

Mavis Gary is a raging alcoholic whose young adult book series is getting one last volume before it is officially shelved. As Mavis tries to write the book, she becomes obsessed with how her ex-boyfriend in Minnesota has just had a child and she returns to her hometown to rekindle a relationship with him, despite him being married. Hanging out at a local bar, Mavis encounters Matt, who was crippled in high school by jocks who thought he was gay.

Even as Mavis pursues Buddy Slade, her high school boyfriend, she keeps finding herself running into Matt, who sees her for the wreck she is and calls her on it. As Mavis moves closer to acknowledging her faults, she finds herself obsessed with Buddy, using Matt and avoiding her parents.

Young Adult is one of those films where it is tough to muster up the enthusiasm to write about the experience, it was so disappointing. First and foremost – even above the writing lacking a pop or intrigue to make the film work on more than just a literal level - Young Adult suffers from the protagonist being utterly loathsome. Again, I am not certain at all what I saw that made me think I would like Young Adult because from her first frames on screen, Mavis Gary is not only mean, self-centered and vapid, but she is boring. Mavis has nothing particularly wrong with her life; she is a successful writer, seems to have all she wants or needs and yet, she’s a drunk who obsesses over the past in the most whiny, self-centered way.

Mavis Gary might be the best cinematic example of a person with a personality disorder (i.e. a person for whom everything revolves around them, with no regard at all for others, their thoughts or feelings) and if that is the case, it does not help her. It makes her no more interesting; instead, she is just an embodiment of a horrible personality. Unfortunately, Young Adult lacks a hook, anything at all to make the viewer empathize with Mavis or even want to keep watching her past the first five minutes.

The closest the film has to an intriguing character is Matt Freehauf. His story is pretty much a one-line joke – he was celebrated as a poster boy for hate-crime awareness until the moment it became clear that he was not gay and thus, the crime was just excessive bullying – but it is well-played by Patton Oswalt. Oswalt lends a quiet strength to the role and becomes a reasonable sage as Matt.

Unfortunately, Young Adult is so predictable that Matt and Mavis eventually do end up in bed together . . . with a remarkable lack of physical or psychological consequences. Perhaps that is what is so troubling about Young Adult; Mavis spends most of her interaction with Matt simply using him and Matt is stuck in the past. Matt is not stuck in the past the way Mavis claims – he has daily reminders of how horrible the past was to him through his scars and being forced to walk with a crutch - but rather in the way he lets Mavis treat him. Matt was a victim of bullying and Mavis, who clearly shows she does not actually care about him, bullies Matt into moving around, giving up his microbrew beer, and ultimately giving in to her in every way she asks.

Unlike a film like Requiem For A Dream, that captures the horrors of modern life with a stark, dank, depressing reality, Young Adult lacks any superlative quality. Requiem For A Dream may be dark and miserable, but it captured a reality with stunning realism as to make it even more troubling. Young Adult does not even do that. It is a predictably-structured melodrama that drags itself to an inevitable, miserable conclusion that leaves the viewer wishing they had back the time they invested in the movie. There is no artistry.

One of my new cinematic favorites, Patrick Wilson, gives an unfortunately dim performances as Slade. Charlize Theron dominates the film as Mavis and while this is not one of her better characters, it is a role that is unlike any of the others she has ever played. She gives a performance that makes her virtually the polar-opposite of the stiff-backed, professional Meredith Vickers in Prometheus. But I’d rather watch that film over and over again than even catch another clip of Theron slouching through the role of Mavis.

Now on DVD, I hated the primary material enough that I refused to watch any of the bonus features. Young Adult is a very easy movie to recommend an “avoid it!” rating.

For other works with Charlize Theron, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Prometheus
Snow White And The Huntsman
Hancock
Arrested Development - Season Three
Aeon Flux
15 Minutes
Reindeer Games

2/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

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

Divorced From The Marketing, Prometheus Is Still More Than “Alien: The Next Generation!”

The Good: Interesting characters, Engaging philosophical elements, Great effects, Decent pacing, Good initial story, Good acting.
The Bad: Plot develops into something far too familiar (derivative).
The Basics: With Prometheus, a science vessel inadvertently awakens a powerful, potentially malevolent force that might redefine humanity’s understanding of itself!


Entering 2012, there was no film I was more excited about than The Dark Knight Rises (reviewed here!). From pretty much the moment Anne Hathaway was cast as Selina Kyle, I was psyched. But on New Year’s Day, I visited the IMDB and saw the movie poster for Prometheus posted there. And I began to look into what the film was about. And suddenly, there was a new movie I was anticipating. With the earliest press about Prometheus debating whether or not the movie, which Ridley Scott had announced as the story of the “space jockey” from Alien, would actually be a prequel to Alien, I was hooked on every scrap of information that was released about Prometheus.

So, I began to consider what a prequel would actually mean. If the film was actually going to be about the giant alien seen in the crashed derelict spacecraft in Alien, it would – I reasoned – have to be set quite some time ago. After all, the “space jockey” was a fossil. So, it seemed logical that any real prequel to Alien that focused on the space jockey would have to be about how that crescent-shaped ship crashed on the planet with the methane crystals in the atmosphere. To satisfy fans – and I am a fan of the Alien Quadrilogy (reviewed here!) – it would have to establish the space jockey setting the twelve-second repeating beacon that the Nostromo was sent to investigate and answer how the space jockey became infected with the alien that burst out of its chest, leaving the fossilized remains.

By those criteria, Prometheus is not a prequel to Alien. Set in the same universe as Alien, Prometheus is an entirely tangential story that populates the Alien universe more than it has been (in Aliens, one of the Marines refers to Ripley’s seeing an alien in such a derisive tone that makes it sound like humans have not had much experience with extraterrestrials, despite other Marines referring to sex with the, presumably, androgynous Arcturians). A science fiction-horror film that tries to be smart and cerebral, Prometheus develops into a fight for survival on a distant world that is likely to please the fans of the Alien franchise.

Except for those looking for something truly new.

The only real, lasting, disappointment from Prometheus is that the build-up implied that the film would be something truly new and different. For all of the incredible aspects of Prometheus, the plot structure too-closely mirrors other installments in the Alien franchise, so that the film that originally seemed audacious enough to truly do its own thing, eventually becomes a whittling down process that seems more like it is trying to squeeze back into the mold, as opposed to truly break it.

That said, Prometheus is incredible and must be seen on the big screen (biggest possible!) in order to truly appreciate the depth, scope and grandeur of all its aspects, even its scariest ones.

Following the discovery on Earth of potential extraterrestrial influence with disparate ancient civilizations, the Weyland Corporation sends an expedition to a remote sector of space in the hopes of discovering who those aliens were and how they influenced humanity. The android, David, awakens the crew of the science ship Prometheus, who include scientists, the ship’s captain and a representative from the Weyland Corporation, Meredith Vickers. Landing on a moon around a gas giant, the Prometheus crew finds an alien structure and inside they discover alien bodies. They also find storage containers. With a sandstorm coming that will cut off the team from the landed ship, the chief scientists – Shaw and Holloway – and David return to the Prometheus.

Aboard the Prometheus, the scientists study an alien head they recovered, while David opens one of the alien containers and infects Holloway with material from it. With the storm passed, another team returns to the temple to find those left behind dead. David accesses another level of the temple, which is actually an alien space ship. While Holloway’s health worsens, David learns that the aliens had, in fact, been to Earth and they may still have plans for it. Desperate to stop the spread of the parasites that are growing within Holloway and Shaw, as well as prevent the ancient aliens from returning to Earth to wipe out humanity, Vickers, Captain Janeck, David, and Shaw work against the alien entities and the sinister Weyland Corporation.

Prometheus is notable in that it does what both great science fiction and great films do; it successfully tries to explore something greater than itself. In many ways, Prometheus is an incredibly well-detailed extension of the old adage that one should not look into the face of their own gods. Elizabeth Shaw is, from a young age, motivated by a strong desire to learn and seek her creator. While she is a scientist, she adopts the idea that humanity was seeded on Earth and the artwork from ancient cultures implies to her that the engineers of humanity’s development returned or lived among ancient humans. Hers is a quest to, essentially, seek out her god.

In many ways, that is the quest of David, as well. Programmed by the Weyland Corporation, David has a full understanding that his programming is limited to a human mindset. David wants to experience something more and his place in Prometheus solidifies the metaphor of the dangers of seeking god, especially when one has something they want of it. Both Shaw and David yearn for discovery (though David has been programmed alternative directives) and Prometheus starts as their search.

But the theme of exploring humanity’s origins and trying to understand who we are and why we exist comes to a pretty abrupt end once Holloway is infected. Instead of simply following that course and trying to provide the audience with answers which were bound to disappoint theists everywhere, Prometheus takes a right turn into horror. The cerebral aspects of Prometheus are not completely negated or done away with – there is an entire conspiracy plotline that becomes far more active in the film’s latter half that is smartly presented – but once Holloway and Shaw become human incubators, Prometheus makes the transition from mildly scary science fiction to an action adventure film that is more in line with the standard horror film than Star Trek or Star Wars.

Prometheus manages to present engaging characters – which might be why it is so disturbing that the film turns into the bloodbath it does. While there are a few members of the Prometheus crew who never leap into being more than background characters, the main crew is remarkably well-defined. Even Vickers, who initially is cast as a cold, efficient, Company-oriented woman who might seem to have no real personality to her outside a sense of ruthless efficiency, is given a compelling reason for all of her actions in the film’s latter half. The relationship between Shaw and Holloway (who is an atheist) works well as an “opposites attract” type relationship while they share a common interest in the archaeological evidence they collated prior to the flight and a sense of adventure that makes their journey together seem plausible.

But, like Alien, Prometheus takes a step back from its characters to become a film that is a series of confrontations and desperate escapes. This, of course, leaves the viewer feeling somewhat jerked around as the characters one gets invested in in Prometheus do not have great chances of survival and the body count in the film is predictably high.

What sets Prometheus apart from other science fiction horrors, in addition to the philosophy and stronger sense of characters at the film’s outset, is the caliber of acting. Prometheus might seem to be playing with a stacked deck with Charlize Theron, Idris Elba, and Michael Fassbender (with brief initial roles from Patrick Wilson and Guy Pearce as well), but the performers truly do give something new of themselves, each and every one. In Prometheus, Elba has a more casual and accessible role as Janeck than in any other role I have yet seen him. He is professional, but approachable and Elba plays Janeck as a guy who cares, which offsets Theron’s Vickers very nicely, as they share many scenes together.

As for Charlize Theron, Prometheus gives her a nice chance to play villainous with more purpose than she was able to illustrate in Snow White And The Huntsman (reviewed here!). Theron plays steely well and she makes Meredith Vickers often feel less human than Michael Fassbender’s David, but she makes the role work. As Vickers is given more backstory, Theron infuses more emotion to her, without ever making the character go through any form of ridiculous transition. Theron establishes Vickers with a strong sense of personality and she never slips from that.

As the resident android, David, in Prometheus, Michael Fassbender obviously has a significant acting challenge. Fassbender continues to impress with his range as David. In Prometheus, he manages to play a character that is clearly not human, while making him seem more than just a guy with somewhat stiff mannerisms. For lack of a better analogy, Fassbender does not make David into a character like Star Trek: The Next Generation’s Data, as an android searching for what it means to be human. Instead, Fassbender manages to simply embody an android by acting soulless. His performance is without spark or zest and that wonderfully frees him to make David seem like an android, without making him unsympathetic. Fassbender dominates his scenes and he still has the ability to evoke complex emotions with simply a look.

The obvious protagonist in Prometheus is Elizabeth Shaw, played by Noomi Rapace. Prometheus is actually the first film I have seen Rapace in and it was enough to make me willing to look her up in other works. She plays Shaw’s idealism exceptionally well – with literal wide-eyed excitement and she is credible in the film’s later sequences which require her to seem both tormented and as something of an action heroine.

The effects in Prometheus are absolutely amazing, making it a visual wonder that ought to be viewed on the biggest possible screen. Having now seen it again, this time in IMAX 3-D, I have to say that is THE way to see Prometheus! Ridley Scott uses the whole canvass for the IMAX presentation and even on that, there are several moments, like when the Prometheus is entering orbit and the atmosphere, that the ship is tiny, even in IMAX. It will be virtually impossible to see on DVD!

The 3-D effects for the IMAX presentation are simply stunning. Because the film was filmed in 3-D, the effects are like watching a box filled with characters and settings, as opposed to post-produced 3-D, which basically looks like two levels. Prometheus is rich in depth, even in the smaller moments, in 3-D IMAX.

As well, the audio presentation is exceptional. Events like the silt pounding the ship and crew make one's chair vibrate from the intensity and the climax of the film is so much richer with the IMAX soundsystem. I was also much more aware of the soundtrack the second time through and the haunting theme to Prometheus lends the film a wonderful sense of adventure and, later, horror.

But Prometheus is not flawless; it’s own familiarity robs it of that. But for fans of the Alien franchise who have been looking for something exciting that is new but on the familiar canvass, after so many false starts and disappointing sequels, Prometheus feels like coming home.

For other works with Micheal Fassbender, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Haywire
X-Men: First Class
Jonah Hex
300

9.5/10

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

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

Conviction Before Trial, The Slow Execution Of "Justice" In Hard Candy.

The Good: Good DVD extras, Exceptional acting, Well-written and directed
The Bad: Not at all entertaining, Deeply disturbing, Utterly gruesome
The Basics: Terrifying but exceptionally well-made, Hard Candy is a tough depiction of torture that does not need to be viewed, certainly there is no entertainment value here.


Every now and then, I encounter something as a reviewer that I find so horrific and grotesque that my kneejerk reaction is to pan it into oblivion and strongly recommend against seeing it. The thing is, there are some works which are terrible and gruesome that objectively viewed are absolutely brilliant. In other words, there are movies that are well-assembled and set out to be disturbing in their themes and structure, but are so well put together, so well accomplish what they do that they become something other than the entertainment they claim to be. The best example I have of this is Requiem For A Dream, which does what it sets out to do with a high level of quality, but is so over-the-top as to be utterly without value or need to see. There are some things we understand, but we don't need to subject ourselves to and as conscientious reviewers, I try to help steer people away from.

Tonight, I add Hard Candy to that list. Much like The Passion Of The Christ, Hard Candy is created with a simple premise and illustrates graphically torture. But where Mel Gibson used flails and blood, writer Brian Nelson and director David Slade use psychology and innuendo to torment a man and the audience for the better part of ninety-five minutes. I am bouncing between a high and an average rating because qualitatively, Hard Candy has much going for it, but I know I will not recommend it and hopefully, those reading this review will decide not to subject themselves to this film.

Hayley Stark is a fourteen year-old girl who meets photographer Jeff Kohlver on the Internet. After chatting on-line for three weeks, they meet together in the daytime at a coffee house. Jeff, who is thirty-two, is clearly intrigued by Hayley but seems committed to remaining on the right side of the law in his dealings with her. However, Hayley essentially invites herself over to his house under the guise of listening to a bootleg recording from a concert she wanted to go to. Against his better judgment, Jeff brings Hayley home with him.

At Jeff's house, Hayley begins to assert her control more, fixing the pair screwdrivers and putting her music on. When Jeff prepares to take photographs of Hayley, he falls unconscious. Jeff wakes up tied to a chair. Hayley seems unnaturally sober and admits to drugging him. Confused, Jeff begins to try to figure out what is going on while Hayley begins to ask questions about the girls that Jeff has taken photographs of. After she accuses him of being a pedophile, Jeff realizes Hayley is not playing and soon her interrogation turns violent as she realizes that Jeff will not confess to the wrongs she believes he has done.

What follows is essentially a fourteen year-old girl preaching, interrogating and castrating a 32 year-old man as she administers justice, believing he has killed a local girl who has gone missing.

The plot pretty much says it all because there is no moral to Hard Candy. Instead, this is a character study of two antagonists. It is a collection of brilliant lines and amazing artistry and a cold sense of brutality that is disguised as righteousness. And it is agonizing for its length and all of the pauses and the fixed stares.

Hayley is quickly established as a girl who is in control and she sees the world in very black and white terms, as is appropriate for a fourteen year-old. She has judged Jeff guilty before they meet in person and every moment she is on screen, she is acting so that by the end, the viewer has to ask themselves just what truths she might have let slip amid the stories, potential lies, and accusations. She is a vigilante and a girl with a vindictive streak.

Jeff, sadly, comes across strangely human and part of what Hard Candy does exceptionally well is raise questions without answering them. But in watching Jeff get tormented by Hayley, the viewer has to seriously ask themselves whether or not there is a crime Jeff could be guilty of that deserves the torment he is suffering. In other words, in a civilized nation where most people can acknowledge that nothing justifies torture and was founded on a principle of abhorring cruel and unusual punishment, how can we find such acts at all entertaining?! Only a monolithic fourteen year-old living in a world of binary logic would believe that somehow tormenting an alleged (not even accused) pedophile somehow balances the scales of justice for the crimes he allegedly perpetrated. Jeff often seems far more human than Hayley does.

In fact, in Hard Candy, the only crime we witness Jeff make (though I refuse to say anything about the last half hour of the film) is transporting a minor (without parental permission) and the crime of stupidity. The stupidity comes in bringing a fourteen year-old into his house (which is not, technically, a crime). Jeff makes a mistake in bringing a minor home, but even that is not illegal (just somewhat witless). It remains believable and in character because Jeff is moderately famous for photographing teenage girls in somewhat risque positions.

The point, though, is that while audiences might be polarized about Hard Candy and be tempted to side with either Hayley (the vigilante) or Jeff (the victim in this context, even if he is potentially a victimizer), the struggle is far from entertaining. It is quickly executed as a psychologically devastating battle between a girl in far too much control over a helpless man. So, unlike something like the masterful hour of television "Duet" (reviewed here!), which involves a man being interrogated for an hour, Hard Candy is not so much an interrogation, but an outright depiction of torture and psychological torment. And it lacks a social message, so instead of being especially clever, it is just cruel.

That said, the acting is absolutely amazing. Ellen Page is brilliant and cold as Hayley Stark. She has a masterful ability to present long speeches and voice the cold, logical voice of righteous vengeance. And in the opening moments of the film, she is brilliant at playing shy and mousy. She telegraphs a few of the reversals, but in the lone scene where her character is out of control, she is spot-on. Moreover, in moments when Jeff breaks loose and there is a physical altercation, Page is amazing at displaying pain and exertion. And whenever her character is lost, Page plays is with her full body and eyes. She is haunting and truly great.

And she plays off Patrick Wilson perfectly. Wilson spends most of the film tied to a chair or a metal table. Yet, even so confined he gives a performance that is active, terrifying and deeply empathetic. Wilson makes us believe completely in Jeff's reality as he is tormented and waits for Hayley to kill him.

On DVD, Hard Candy comes with two commentary tracks and honestly, the only reason I even have a debate in how to rate Hard Candy is that I watched the film three times. After the first time, I told myself, "I will not subject myself to that again!" But, I decided, I would do some work and put the commentary track on, so I didn't have to watch it, but I could listen to people talk about it. The commentary track with Slade and Nelson is informative and insightful and actually discusses the ambiguity and technical aspects of making Hard Candy. The commentary track with Page and Wilson is pleasantly lighthearted and in fact contains the best comment that can be made on the film. When Hayley knocks Jeff unconscious to transfer him from the chair to the table in order to perform surgery on him, actress Ellen Page says, "Why don't we stop now, I don't want to watch more." Everyone involved in the film knew they made something controversial and disturbing and I appreciated Page admitting she didn't want to see what came next. There are deleted scenes and featurettes on the making of the film and its controversy, but they add little that the commentary tracks did not already cover (the only thing the commentary tracks do not answer is how old Ellen Page was when Hard Candy was shot).

Hard Candy is a brutal film without catharsis and while I can live with that, there is a cruelty depicted on screen that is not entertainment. We are lessened by watching it and trying to experience it as such and for that reason I cannot stress enough that this film ought to be avoided.

For other works with Ellen Page, please visit my reviews of:
Super
Inception
Whip It
X-Men III: The Last Stand

8.5/10 (NOT Recommended!)

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

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why Watchmen Deserves The 2009 Best Picture Nomination (And Oscar!)

| | |
The Basics: Often neglected by the Academy, the “super hero” film Watchmen deserves the consideration for the Best Picture Oscar more than any in 2009!


This was originally written and published when it still mattered! Enjoy!


As the year comes to a close and the almost six thousand ballots for the Academy Awards (Oscars) have been sent out, movie viewers who are members of the Academy are being asked to vote for the nominees for every major award in the Academy Awards. While I had hoped to finish my Best Picture Project (here!) before writing this article, my lack of a VCR (yes, one of the films was never put on DVD and another two have been a bear for me to get in on anything other than VHS!) is leaving me three films short as the ballots for the 2009 Academy Awards go out. Even so, I am in a unique position to write about what might be deserving of the Best Picture Oscar as I have reviewed every prior winner.

Hands down, the 2009 Best Picture Oscar ought to go to Watchmen.

With the Golden Globe nominations showing a science fiction preference only for Avatar (reviewed here!), the Academy is continuing its rather dumb (there’s no more appropriate word for it) preference for films that are proximate to the ballot release. In other words, most films that get nominated for the Oscars are the ones that are released in December, where they are fresh in the minds of those who vote for them. While the Golden Globe nominations do not necessarily foreshadow the nominees or the winners of Oscars, sadly the voters seldom break ranks with the Golden Globe nominations. For Watchmen, they ought to. As near as I can figure it, there are three reasons why the Academy should break with tradition and nominate Watchmen (reviewed here!) and three reasons they should uphold tradition and nominate and give Watchmen the Best Picture Oscar.

The reasons Oscar voters should break with tradition and nominate Watchmen for the Best picture are:

1. It uses the film medium extraordinarily well. Over the course of the (almost) ninety years the Best Picture award has been given out, it is shocking how many films have won the top honor with little or no differentiation from a stage play. The Best Picture ought to do something that illustrates that it is a great movie. It’s not a great book, theatrical play or comic book, it is a film.

Ironically, while Watchmen is based upon a graphic novel, this is the film. And, more than any other film this year, it uses the medium well. The special effects create an alternate reality that could not be created on stage. It is rich, filled with costumes, sets and special effects (including music) which create a film that looks and feels real, even though it obviously is not. As well, it is stylish and characters react in ways that have a realism to them which is not the case in such over-the-top special effects pictures like Avatar. Watchmen is consistent in the way it creates a film which tells the story it tells in a way that effectively uses the medium and tells it with the full richness of the big screen. It does not require one use their imagination (like a book) and it tells a big story that could not be told as effectively on stage (or is so static that it looks like it might as well be a stage play). In the history of the Best Picture, there have been a slew of winners from Broadway Melody to Ordinary People to Chicago which do not use the film medium all that well, creating films which might as well have been theatrical productions and do not use the full scope of the film medium. Watchmen uses the full scope and pushes the envelope.

2. It would recognize an oft-neglected genre in film. In the history of the Academy, no science fiction or super hero film has ever won Best Picture. Star Wars (A New Hope) lost to Annie Hall! And The Empire Strikes Back was never nominated. If the Best Picture represents the greatest film of the year, there ought to be some consideration for the body of work that is created by acknowledging this. While science fiction and super hero films are exceptionally popular, none has ever gotten the top prize.

Last year, The Dark Knight was shut out of the big award, despite being exceptionally popular and well-made. Watchmen, arguably, tops even that. It’s about time the body of “greatest films of all time” included one which celebrated the fantastic. Horror (Silence Of The Lambs) and Fantasy (Return Of The King) have garnered the top prize, it’s about time science fiction/super hero films had their shot and there is, arguably, none better than Watchmen, certainly not for 2009!

3. It would discourage Oscar Pandering Season and raise the bar on films that get nominated. Films are put out 52 weeks of the year, it is absolutely insulting that the only ones that get fair consideration for the Best Picture are released in December. The Academy voters are treated as idiots who have short attention spans and, sadly, they live down to that by usually nominating films that come out in December.

Watchmen was released in March and that is no reason it ought not to be fairly considered, even if it means voters might have to actually go back and rewatch, rent or buy the film to screen it. For sure, it deserves to be seen on the big screen, but it is now available on two different DVD/Blu-Ray versions for voters to screen it on!

The reasons Oscar voters should uphold tradition and nominate Watchmen for the Best Picture are:
1. It is a smart film with great character development. Far too often, the Best Picture winner is a movie that has predictable character arcs. From The Great Ziegfeld and The Life Of Emile Zola through No Country For Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire, the Best Picture winner is filled with character studies and stores where the characters are not static. Like Crash, Watchmen is an intimate character study which features characters who actually grow and change and develop through the movie.

Watchmen stands out because most of the characters grow and change throughout the film and the primary one who does not change actually has a statement by the fact that he does not change. Great films are character-driven and the characters of Watchmen – Dr. Manhattan, Rorschach, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre and Adrian Veidt – move the plot forward and advance the plot of the film. The plot does not determine the direction of the film, the characters do. This is the key element of all of the best stories (not just films). The best Best Picture winners – Amadeus, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, and Casablanca – all have this in common. Watchmen deserves a place with them.

2. It would help illustrate the independence of the Academy from the foreign press, which nominates the Golden Globes. Because the Golden Globes nominate both Drama and Comedy/Musical, they often set the trends for Academy voters, but when the Academy has illustrated its independence, we’ve had winners like Crash.

Watchmen is a distinctly American film and, especially on the heels of Slumdog Millionaire deserves to win.

3. It is set in New York City. This might seem ridiculous, but given how many Best Picture winners are set in New York City, this seems like it is a fair mark in the film’s favor! Sure, it’s an alternate New York City, but if New York City films have a better chance of winning, it’s about time that worked in the favor of a truly original and incredible film!

For these reasons and more, Watchmen ought to win the Best Picture Oscar and voters ought to give it serious consideration when they receive their ballots!

For other film commentary projects, please check out my argument on why Anne Hathaway would be an ideal choice for Wonder Woman, here!

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

Musicals Of Darkness, Desire and Disfigurements: The Phantom Of The Opera

The Good: Great singing, orchestration, costumes
The Bad: Garbled audio in several scenes, Most characters don't "pop," Plot technique removes menace
The Basics: Worth watching for Emmy Rossum's magnificent voice and performance, The Phantom Of The Opera is otherwise a startlingly average tale of love and obsession.


I think the reason most horror movies do not play with narrative technique is that it keeps the viewer wondering who lives and who dies in a story. It's hard to have menace when the story is told in flashback by one of the characters. In fact, one of the few drawbacks of the show Carnivale (reviewed here!) is that the series begins as a story told by one of the characters, who looks noticeably older. So, no matter the menace, the viewer knows the apocalypse does not come and no matter how severe the bloodbath, we know one character who never perishes. In a similar way, The Phantom Of The Opera mortgages elements of menace because the story is a flashback wherein one of the surviving characters attempts to recapture moments of his past by purchasing a chandelier.

Christine is an opera singer whose talents are hidden in the shadows as her career is dwarfed by the diva Carlotta. When new managers buy the Paris Opera House, Christine's career is given a boost by a mysterious figure who live beneath the theater, who insists that the new owners give Christine the lead part in a new opera. Christine performs, and quite superbly, attracting the eye of Raoul, and the ire of Carlotta. Carlotta returns so Christine may not continue to steal the spotlight, which irks the Phantom of the Opera (Christine's mysterious tutor). Hoping to divide Christine and Raoul, the Phantom attempts to seduce Christine, the pupil he has fallen in love with, and chaos ensues.

And the viewer just keeps waiting for that chandelier to make its entrance.

The Phantom Of The Opera is based upon the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber and it, too, is a musical. That means during most of the important character moments and times when characters are relating to one another, they break out into song as opposed to just talking with one another. It's a pretty solid musical.

The decent thing about The Phantom Of The Opera as a musical is that it's a decent musical. The music is good, the tunes are operatic, grand and memorable. The style is a fusion of classic opera and pop-rock, giving the piece a sense of being timeless while still appealing to younger audiences. There are recognizable tracks like "The Music of the Night" and the theme to The Phantom Of The Opera and they are well performed in this outing.

Much of the film has to be judged on the music and in this regard, director Joel Schumacher - whose work I have traditionally not enjoyed - chose well in his casting. Gerard Butler, who plays the Phantom, has a magnificent voice and it is used well in this film. He is paired with Emmy Rossum, who I first noticed in Songcatcher. Rossum's voice is exceptional and in this presentation of The Phantom Of The Opera, she is able to explore the depth and breadth of her vocal abilities and she shines brightly.

Emmy Rossum steals every scene she is in and not only because she is magnificently costumed, which she is. Rossum, whose parts have generally been smaller than this - she does not last long in Mystic River, for example - but here she clearly proves her worth. She creates a distinctive, viable, articulate and empathetic character through her portrayal of Christine. It is her performance that invests the viewer in caring what happens in the movie and Christine becomes the only memorable or intriguing character in the movie based on Rossum's acting.

That is saying quite a bit when you have a movie with so many intricate machinations, including a disfigured guy living in possibly the most cinematic sewer of all time.

Truth be told, though, there is little else to recommend The Phantom Of The Opera, though it is worth mentioning that the direction is decent. Schumacher uses the camera to focus on angles, perspectives and views that could not be captured by watching a stage performance. Wisely, Schumacher makes a visual feast out of The Phantom Of The Opera with lush sets, extraordinary costumes and a sense of movement that establishes a world that feels cinematic, rather than theatrical. This is easily the best directed Schumacher film I've yet seen.

Sadly, though, the film has some of the same limitations as the play. The Phantom of the Opera mortgages any sympathy the viewer might have for him through his villainy and Raoul is pretty much a generic good-looking guy who the audience is supposed to think is a better choice for Christine. The truth is, Christine and her friend Meg have more on-screen chemistry and more binding them than Christine and Raoul. The plot here takes precedence over genuine character development or real sensibilities.

Instead, this is plotted like a very average musical and essentially tells the simple romantic narrative that has been told and retold from Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte on. Writers Gaston Leroux, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher add nothing new to the essential story of a woman who has two men to choose between.

But, at least they make it look good. And it sounds good. And if you can't create something genuinely new, the least you can do is make an illusion of it that hints at originality. This does that, at the very least.

For other works with Patrick Wilson, please check out my reviews of:
The Switch
The A-Team
Watchmen
Passengers

6/10

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

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