Documenting The Lifestyle: Why Straight Outta Compton Works!

The Good: Engaging story, Decent performances, Moments of character
The Bad: Underdeveloped moments and characters
The Basics: Straight Outta Compton hits its mark for telling the story of Ruthless Records and the meteoric rise of N.W.A.


Living, as I now do, in pretty much the middle of nowhere, I do not get to go out to the movies as often as I might like. There is a theater in my current town that shows a single movie for a single showing each day for a week or two at a time. So, when I go out to the movies at the nearest city, it takes a lot these days to hook me on going back out. Earlier this year, when I went downstate to see Terminator: Genisys (reviewed here!), there was only one movie trailer before the film that actually grabbed me and made me want to watch the film it advertised. The trailer was for Straight Outta Compton and I was surprised by how effective the trailer was (even if I didn't rush out to see it in the theaters when it was released in August).

Straight Outta Compton was advertised as a film based on the rise of the band N.W.A. and the draw of the trailer was impressive in that I was a kid when N.W.A.'s album Straight Outta Compton was released and, to this day, I don't believe I've heard the entire thing. As a kid growing up in the suburbs in Upstate New York, the concepts and struggles depicted in gangster rap were very much outside my experience. In fact, in high school, I can recall only one of my fellow students who knew anything about gangster culture. But the preview trailer for Straight Outta Compton painted a picture of an engaging story that would tell the story of how the Los Angeles rap group N.W.A. was formed.

And, in broad strokes, Straight Outta Compton does that. The film belabors the disintegration of the band, more than its formation, but for those who have no experience with the players involved, Straight Outta Compton depicts an interesting story of young, disenfranchised men who decide to make a positive contribution to society by railing against the problems they live with daily.

In Compton (Los Angeles) in 1986, Easy-E is dealing drugs and avoiding the police, while the local D.J. Dr. Dre is struggling to get respect from his mother, who wants more from him. He leaves his brother behind at his mother's house and moves out to try to make a viable music career. At the time, Ice Cube is in high school, writing rhymes and songs about life around him. One night, at Doo-Tos Club, Dre puts Cube on the mic while he and DJ Yella spin records. Easy-E and MC Ren hear the performance and are impressed. Dre convinces Easy-E to put some of his drug money into a record and soon after, they form Ruthless Records. The quintet creates a record, "Boyz 'N The Hood" with Easy-E providing the lead vocals and they begin selling out copies of the single locally. While picking up a pressing of the record, Easy-E is approached by Jerry Heller. Heller tells Easy-E he can make N.W.A. legitimate and he soon delivers, by getting the group signed with Priority Records. While recording the album Straight Outta Compton, the group goes outside and is harassed by the Torrence Police and Jerry steps in; Ice Cube writes the song "Fuck Tha Police" and it becomes a hit for the group.

While touring to promote the album Straight Outta Compton, N.W.A. sells out shows around the United States and they spend 1989 touring, until Dr. Dre's younger brother is killed and the band is arrested during their Detroit concert. At a press conference after the band is freed, a reporter's question about money clues the uncontracted Ice Cube into the idea that the band is making a lot of money that its members are not seeing. As the primary writer of the group's material, Ice Cube pushes Jerry for a better contract before he quits the group and goes solo. As Ice Cube's solo career takes off, N.W.A. releases a second album without him and the band begins to fall apart. By 1993, Easy-E finally learns the truth about how Jerry was stealing money from him and the others and as N.W.A. prepares to come back together for a new album, Easy-E collapses from HIV-related complications.

Straight Outta Compton works for the parts it possesses, but it is noticeably missing massive chunks of the story of the band N.W.A. Easy-E is shown coming up with the name Ruthless Records, but the group is already named N.W.A. when Easy-E meets Jerry. Similarly, how the members of the group met one another is not at all clear from Straight Outta Compton. Moreover, while MC Ren might have been integral to N.W.A., in Straight Outta Compton, he is essentially a background singer. Similarly, DJ Yella is presented as a technician while Dr. Dre seems to be the group's primary composer. Straight Outta Compton is also lacking in any scenes that reveal how much of the titular album was actually created: after a single recording becomes a hit, N.W.A. is suddenly recording a full album based on . . . .? Ice Cube's notebook, perhaps? Only the genesis of "Fuck Tha Police" is illustrated and as a writer, it's somewhat baffling to me to consider that the group speed-read the song and then instantly composed and recorded it?

The question marks are indicative of how the narrative gaps in Straight Outta Compton affect the basic comprehension of the story the movie depicts. Easy-E, Dr. Dre, and Ice Cube are given substantive roles in Straight Outta Compton, but even Jerry Heller has a more meaty role than MC Ren and DJ Yella. A film ought not to require extensive research on the story it tells in order to understand what it depicts. To wit, there is a single line in Straight Outta Compton from Jerry to Easy-E about him having sex with a lot of women prior to Easy-E suddenly being revealed to be H.I.V. positive. It's not like throughout the film, Easy-E is actually seen with tons of different women.

Despite the occasionally sloppy storytelling, Straight Outta Compton is very engaging. It is also surprisingly charming. There are some amusing one-liners throughout Straight Outta Compton and they are universally well-delivered. While Paul Giamatti is the most prominent performer in Straight Outta Compton, the talents of O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, and Jason Mitchell are impressively presented. Jackson plays his own father (Ice Cube) throughout the film and he nails the role from the trademark scowl to the swagger Ice Cube has on-screen. Hawkins plays Dr. Dre and the role gives him a couple of truly great scenes as Dr. wrestles with leaving his family and its effects.

Mitchell is getting decent pre-Oscar buzz already and his performance as Easy-E gives him a lot to play with. After hours of playing Easy-E cool and collected, Mitchell has to maintain the character while infusing him with absolute shock over his diagnosis and the loss of the power and clout he once had. The on-screen gravitas of Jackson and Mitchell and the scenes bouncing between the two makes for a better flow for Straight Outta Compton than the film's writing.

In the end, Straight Outta Compton is a solidly entertaining docudrama, regardless of how much of it is missing; what is present is impressive enough to be worth watching.

For other works with Aldis Hodge, please visit my reviews of:
The Walking Dead - Season 4
The East
Happy Feet
American Dreamz

7/10

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

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

Counting Up To Six: How The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro Loses Its Way. . .

The Good: Good performances, Pretext of character development
The Bad: Over-the-top special effects, Entirely derivative plot, Lack of spark
The Basics: The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro starts off remarkably well, but continues to add in elements until it is diluted into being Just Another Superhero Sequel.


I went into The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro with reasonably high expectations, despite having never been a fan of the Spider-Man franchise. I enjoyed The Amazing Spider-Man (reviewed here!), but found it largely to be an example of “better ingredients, better meal.” In other words, the reboot started out from an advantageous place considering that the actors in it were of a higher caliber than those who began in Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy. So, bolstered by the success of the reboot a few years back, I turned to The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro ready to be solidly entertained.

Little did I know that Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci (the two who brought us the reboot of Star Trek, reviewed here!), and Jeff Pinkner were basically going to turn in a rewrite of Batman Forever (reviewed here!) for the Spider-Man franchise. Okay, it’s not quite that bad, but The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro has a primary villain who bears a striking resemblance in terms of character arc to the Edward Nigma character in Batman Forever and he is juggled clumsily between other budding villains so he never quite pops the way viewers might hope. In fact, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is such a jumbled mess of elements that it would be more accurately subtitled (for those markets that include the subtitle): The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Set-Up For The Sequel.

Therein lies the fundamental problem with The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro: the whole film has a grossly assembled feeling to it. Of course The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is an assembled work: there was a writing team, a director, the actors add their own stuff, the studio comes in with notes, etc. Almost all films are collaborative works that start as a work cobbled together from ideas that writers hope will work together. The trick in moviemaking is that the film’s elements need to feel organic, not assembled. When the great moments of reversal come, the viewer should be able to say, “that makes sense” even if they did not see it coming. The best films make one stop looking for the tricks and get so engrossed that when the surprises pop up they truly are surprising. Unfortunately, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro doesn’t do that. Instead, the film follows a troublingly rigid formula that cobbles together elements from The Amazing Spider-Man, Batman Forever and classic Spider-Man comic book storylines that are so well known that even non-fans like myself are entirely aware of them. In short, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro has no surprises for anyone who is awake and has seen any five comic book-based films over the last ten years; what’s worse is that it misuses the talent present in the film in a way The Amazing Spider-Man did not.

Opening with a ballsy rehash of Richard and Mary Parker fleeing Oscorp and New York City (which keeps the protagonist of the film off the screen for the first seven plus minutes!), Peter Parker’s parents meet an untimely end, this time on-screen. As their plane goes down, Richard sends his files to a secret Roosevelt facility using wi-fi technology I’m pretty sure we didn’t have during that time period. In the present day, New York City is besieged by deranged thief Aleksei Sytsevich, who has stolen some vials from Oscorp and is fleeing through downtown with his thugs when he runs into the New York City police department and Spider-Man. Spider-Man manages to foil the robbery, much to the chagrin of Detective Stacy, who – like Peter Parker (Spider-Man’s mundane alter-ego) is kept from the high school graduation by the chase. Parker makes it to graduation just in time (just in time for an awesome Stan Lee cameo!), but having seen Detective Stacy recently, he feels conflicted about actually taking Gwen Stacy up on her generous offer to join the Stacy family for dinner that night. Appearing at the restaurant, Peter tells Gwen he can’t really keep seeing her and Gwen breaks up with Peter for not having the balls to break the promise he made in the prior film to her father outright.

Following their break-up, Max Dillon, an Oscorp employee who has created a revolutionary new power grid for New York City, which is housed in Oscorp, finds himself alone and stepped on by everyone around him. Having been rescued by Spider-Man during the Sytsevich heist, he has a bit of hero worship for Spider-Man. On his birthday, the lonely engineer – who is stepped on by everyone around him, most notably an Oscorp employee who is many years his junior, but seems more outwardly ambitious and a bit of a jackass – meets Gwen Stacy and is thrilled by the simple fact that she remembers his name. Unfortunately, that is the day that Norman Osborn, the founder of Oscorp, dies. Norman dies after having recalled his son, Harry, from prep school and revealing to him that he has prolonged his life using terrible means which have mutated him into something not-quite-human. Harry inherits Oscorp and the employees are all sent home. Unfortunately for Max Dillon, that means his jack-ass superior is unwilling to turn the power off in the conduit he is fixing for the company and Dillon is electrocuted and falls into a tank of electric eels . . . which naturally turns him into a glowing blue man who resurrects in the company morgue hours later.

Scared and unsure of his own abilities, Max Dillon walks out into New York City where his thirst for electrical energy leads him to absorb massive amounts of electricity in Times Square. This makes Peter Parker’s spider-sense tingle (though not explicitly referenced) during his conversation with Gwen Stacy, with whom he is attempting a friendship. Spider-man arrives on the scene and, despite having one of his two web-slingers knocked out by the electrified Dillon, he is able to incapacitate Max Dillon (largely because conversation with Dillon was going remarkably well until one of the police snipers jumped the gun and shot at Dillon). While Peter Parker reaches out to the mourning Harry Osborn, Max Dillon is experimented upon at the secret Oscorp facility, Ravencroft Institute. But soon, Harry’s quest for a cure to the genetic disease that killed his father and whose first symptoms he is now experiencing hits dead ends and corporate intrigue. Following Kurt Connors’ experiments in The Amazing Spider-Man, Oscorp destroyed a number of experiments to avoid lawsuits, including the radioactive spiders that bit Peter Parker. Harry’s right hand man at the company, Donald Menken, is working against him to advance to the CEO position himself. So, when Harry realizes he needs Spider-Man’s blood, he asks Peter Parker for help (thinking Peter knows Spider-man because he has photographed the superhero). But Peter Parker’s own quest for answers has led him to discover the Roosevelt facility and, in the process, he has learned the circumstances under which his father fled. Peter knows that his blood cannot help Harry, but when he and Spider-man refuse to help Harry, Harry takes a different path. He breaks into Ravencroft to free Electro (Max Dillon’s now-villainous alter-ego) and set him upon Spider-man. With the power out in New York City and a determined Gwen Stacy insisting on helping him, Spider-Man must stop Max Dillon and an obsessed Harry Osborn before they destroy New York.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro juggles a lot and while it is not too much for a single film, it is too much for this particular film. The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is an odd film as far as pacing goes. It starts out with an interminably long sequence with Peter Parker’s father, becomes engaging for the bits involving Peter, Gwen and the actual rise of Electro, but stumbles through the entire Harry Osborn plot. The Harry Osborn plot is good, but it feels like it is part of another movie entirely. And, in order to make it work and all come together, the writing team and director Marc Webb seem to have given up. Much the way Princess Leia in Return Of The Jedi (reviewed here!) bears almost no resemblance to the character seen in the two films that precede it, Max Dillon/Electro bears no real resemblance to the character seen in the first two-thirds of the film. Harry Osborn gives Dillon the weakest argument for turning against his hero, Spider-man, ever conceived and Dillon just goes right along with it. In a film where the viewer knows so much of the mythos (Sam Raimi’s Spider-man movies are not terribly old and it’s not like they were not popular!) (It’s hard to call Gwen Stacy’s fate a “spoiler” when it was the subject of a comic book FORTY-ONE YEARS AGO!), the team that assembled The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro takes all of the easiest possible ways out. Max Dillon spends the first two-thirds of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 being set up to be Spider-man’s sidekick. He’s a likable guy, stepped on by schmucks around him until he is given a series of powers he does not at all understand. Then, he’s tortured by the same people who screwed him over his whole life so . . . how is it we’re supposed to believe he goes after entirely the wrong guy in the last act?! Did the writing team learn nothing from Star Trek: Nemesis* (reviewed here!)?!

So, Electro . . . utterly generic villain after one of the coolest super hero origin stories that could have been. That leaves The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro with two villains and a phantom antagonist. First, the villains. Aleksei Sytsevich is cartoonish in his original appearance and when he pops up at the climax of the film as the Rhino, it embodies a problem that has been present through the entire film: the special effects. The special effects in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro are just ridiculous. Gone is a sensible proportion, a realism of physics that was more apparent in The Amazing Spider-Man than in anything from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy. In fact, from his first moments on screen as a CG webslinger, the Spider-man in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro looks like a collection of b-roll from Sam Raimi’s trilogy. The attempt at spectacle is over-the-top, distracting and makes the film look like an animated film as opposed to a serious super hero work. But when the Rhino, in this incarnation a massive tank-like mech blasting through New York City, makes his appearance, it is much more worthy of a groan than a gasp.

Then there’s Harry Osborn. Harry is played by Dane DeHaan and he is, to be entirely fair to him, really good in the role. DeHaan holds his own opposite a heavily made-up Chris Cooper who plays the dying Norman Osborn and he has enough on-screen gravitas to be a compelling leader of Oscorp. DeHaan is as good in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro as Andrew Garfield was in The Amazing Spider-Man. And it’s not DeHaan’s fault that the character is written so thinly, cramped in between two other villains and manages to absurdly talk Max Dillon into completely betraying his established character. I can understand why the studio did not want to risk everything on Dane DeHaan and a Spider-Man film that focused on the Green Goblin as the villain . . . no, wait, they risked at least as much on a reboot of the franchise and won, so why wouldn’t they play to their known strengths for the mythos?! Yes, one of the big reasons The Amazing Spider-man 2 is likely to be released in the U.S. without the Rise Of Electro subtitle is because audiences will recognize the film to be equally the Rise Of The Green Goblin and wonder why the hell Sony isn’t touting that. If you’re going to turn the story on its ear from what fans of the Spider-Man film franchise know anyway, why not completely reinvent the origin of the Green Goblin and give him his own film?!

Then there’s the phantom antagonist. Detective Stacy has no real presence in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro. He pops up, glowers once or twice and disappears from the narrative. In fact, anyone who looks at basic movie structure will look at the film’s climax and wonder just where the hell Detective Stacy is. Peter Parker stands around at the same location for quite some time, a place where Detective Stacy would be bound to go, and yet there is no scene where the law and order cop who spent the entire first film loathing Spider-man’s vigilantism appears, sees Peter Parker and snaps just long enough to kick the kid’s ass. Detective Stacy is recharacterized in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro as a complete wuss. In fact, the only analogy I have is to my own life. When I met the woman who became my wife, we met online and for our first in-person meeting, we met at the restaurant at which she was working at the time. I was caught in a snowstorm and was late and her friends had been ragging on her and when I finally appeared (an hour and a half late), she was relieved and her friends were wary. Her friends, protective as they were, said to me, “If you hurt our girl, we’ll kill you.” Well, me being a pragmatist, bored, and wanting to spend time with the woman I had come to see, I said, “Didn’t you say that about the last guy she dated?” The answer from her friends were, “Well . . . yes.” So, I won some points with some and made some pretty freaked out when my response was, “Well, it’s hard to take your threat seriously when I know for a fact he’s still walking around above ground.” Detective Stacy, like my wife’s friends, talk a good game, but when confronted with everything he feared . . . the good detective completely disappears from the storyline. It’s impossible to take him seriously and I know if I ever go back and rewatch The Amazing Spider-Man, I’m going to laugh my ass off at Denis Leary’s over-the-top indignation as Detective Stacy.

That brings us to the big plot event that anyone who knows comic book history knows would eventually come to one of the key characters in the Spider-man cinematic stories. Without revealing that “spoiler” to those who are not so well-versed, it does happen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro . . . in exactly the way it was done in the books (which I was surprised by because I thought it happened differently, but upon further research, yup, it was right on the mark!). That brings a decent tragic element into The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro.

Unfortunately, it comes too late and after so many other threads have been introduced and disappointed the viewers and quite a bit before the ultimate climax to the movie. Moreover, the impact on Spider-Man is not one of a vigilante hero. Spider-Man is given an arc that is pretty much the opposite of Batman in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro; in analogous terms, Spider-man’s arc here would be like if Batman were an established vigilante and the death of his parents led him to hang up the cowl, as opposed to hunt down the mobsters that killed them. That Spider-Man spends no time on-screen hunting the villain that instigates the tragedy that knocks Peter Parker off his game makes one wonder just who Spider-man was setting out to help when he put on the mask (it clearly wasn’t himself!).

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is a good example of better casting than performances. Jamie Foxx is good as Max Dillon . . . unless one has seen him in The Soloist (reviewed here!) in which case he’s adequate and peaks at reprising his role from that film. Colm Feore is given too little to do in the underdeveloped role of Donald Menken (which would have been a much more effective role had the character appeared in The Amazing Spider-Man as an ambitious up-and-comer who was screwed over by Harry’s return in this film) and Felicity Jones (who has given some amazing performances in the past) could be replaced by a house plant for all that the role of Felicia offers her . . . or the film. Paul Giamatti’s role of Aleksei Sytsevich is presented with so much enthusiasm that viewers have to wonder how much is the character and how much is Giamatti laughing at the studio for paying him so much for such a ridiculous role (and the promise of future appearances as the Rhino!). Sally Field, Chris Cooper, and Marton Csokas (Dr. Kafka at Ravencroft) are all adequate in their roles, sometimes even good.

But The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is headlined by Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone and for two performers who can usually do no wrong, they fall unfortunately flat in this film. Gone entirely is the on-screen chemistry between Garfield and Stone . . . and that has severe ramifications for the movie’s climax. The two have mediocre banter that is delivered adequately, but from Stone and Garfield, viewers expect sparks. Garfield’s initial voiceovers are quips as the CG Spider-Man flies around and Garfield sounds bored delivering the lines. Not to be outdone, Emma Stone’s valedictory speech for Gwen Stacy is delivered with such a lackluster quality that I was bored . . . and it wasn’t as long as a real graduation! Sadly, the pair reaches their peak for a scene in a maintenance closet where they almost break the fourth wall by acknowledging the cliché of hiding in the janitor’s closet whilst being pursued by company thugs (who, like Star Wars Stormtroopers see a closed door and assume that those they are hunting cannot possibly be on the other side of it). That banter is good, but subsequent scenes simply throw the pair together after months of being apart without any organic incidents to allow them to truly rethink the decisions that drove them apart. Could Garfield and Stone have sold it? It’s possible, but they don’t and that undermines The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro.

Despite the over-the-top web-related effects, Electro looks pretty awesome in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro. Sure, Marc Webb essentially resurrected Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen (reviewed here!) for Electro in the film, but the effects work better than almost anything else in the movie. Sadly, given that Doc Ock’s tentacles can be seen in the Oscorp lab and rumors have leaked for months that the Sinister Six (six villains from Spider-man who team up but never seem to quite be able to actually kill Spider-man once and for all) might well get their own film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro seems largely like a set-up film for that. The essential Spider-Man characters are present, they are doing their own things, but every opportunity to look back (for a dead character, Richard Parker spends a lot of time on-screen in this film!) and look forward is utilized to push those characters out of the way for painfully obvious foreshadowing moments. The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro is almost enough to make viewers wish for six stand-alone films featuring the rise of each of the Sinister Six . . . just so long as they bothered to develop each one well. As it stands, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro puts three potentials in play, but does so in such a way that the viewer doesn’t give a damn if they ever grace the screen again. At least Webb and his team were smart enough to not recast J. Jonah Jamison on-screen (Sam Raimi got him absolutely, perfectly right, with J.K. Simmons!).

If you feel you must watch The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise Of Electro, I’d say hold out for its appearance on DVD; this is one of those films that the more one contemplates, the more faults they see in it and I cannot imagine it will age any better.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men: Days Of Future Past
Guardians Of The Galaxy
The Wolverine
The Avengers
Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance
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

4/10

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

*For those who don’t catch the reference, in Star Trek: Nemesis, the villain was tormented by Romulans, discarded and despised by Romulans, and when he assembled a massive military power that would have allowed him to actually get proper revenge on the Romulans, he instead turned his aggression toward the Federation, which made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Come to think of it, his whole mission in life was blood, too, so between Harry Osborn and Max Dillon, the writing team just picked all the worst aspects of villain motivations from Star Trek: Nemesis and ran with them!

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

Unnecessarily Divergent, Saving Mr. Banks Underwhelms.

The Good: Wonderful acting, Good direction
The Bad: Loathsome characters, Poor pacing, Unremarkable story
The Basics: Trying to bamboozle viewers through its release during Oscar Pandering Season, Saving Mr. Banks is an unremarkable movie masquerading as “great.”


Every now and then, Disney surprises me with one of its live action films. I think I was one of the few people who was truly charmed by The Odd Life Of Timothy Green (reviewed here!) when it made its debut over a year ago. And yet, that movie tapped into something in me that I found myself absolutely, unexpectedly enjoying the film. My point is that I have no innate prejudice against the live action works that come out of Disney studios. I write that at the outset of my review of Saving Mr. Banks because this time I find myself on the opposite side of many of the critics. While much of the media seems to be charmed by Disney’s latest live-action work, I found Saving Mr. Banks to be ponderous and dull.

I think it is worth noting, after making such an assertion that: 1. I have no familiarity with the history of the events upon which Saving Mr. Banks is based, 2. I cannot recall having ever seen Mary Poppins or having read any of the books upon which the film was based, and 3. I like movies about the creative process - Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) for example masterfully presents multiple layers of the creation and presentation of artistic works – and I can certainly handle films that feature two or more parallel storylines, like Cloud Atlas (reviewed here!). But Saving Mr. Banks is no Cloud Atlas and, in fact, it reminded me strongly of Julie And Julia (reviewed here!) and all of the problems that film had. In short, the fundamental problem with Saving Mr. Banks is that it tries to cram two stories into one and it does a disservice to both. In the case of Saving Mr. Banks, the film clumsily blends the story of the making of the film Mary Poppins with the genesis of the Mary Poppins character from the author’s childhood experiences.

In 1961, Polly Travers is living in London, doing her best to resist selling the rights to the book Mary Poppins, when her agent convinces her to take a meeting with Walt Disney in Los Angeles. Just as P.L. travels to Disney, Travers Goff once led his family from their home in Australia, with his wife and three children. Arriving in the outback, Travers convinces his wife Margaret that life will be an adventure and he encourages the children to use their imaginations. Arriving at Walt Disney’s office after finding herself unimpressed with the hotel and driver, P.L. Travers is resistant to the idea of a film adaptation – especially a musical – of Mary Poppins. After a direct appeal from Walt Disney, Travers and the writers begin doing a line reading – with music – of their script for the live-action Mary Poppins.

In Australia in the past, Travers inspires his daughter with his flights of fancy and imaginative perspective. Margaret finds herself overwhelmed and unhappy, especially when she does much of the work of raising the children and Travers has the benefit of bonding with the children more. The unhappy family relationship between the Goffs informs the viewer to the motivations of the cranky P.L. Travers, who is protecting her intellectual property beyond all reason, sense, and profitability. Fighting every step of the way, P.L. does everything she can to sabotage Walt Disney’s attempt to make his daughters’ favorite literary character come to life on the big screen.

It’s easy to see what the writers and director John Lee Hancock are trying to do with Saving Mr. Banks: they belabor establishing P.L. Travers as something of an immovable object while weaving in the explanations for why Travers is the way she is. The explanation is drawn-out and not particularly entertaining; Travers Goff is a drunk and lives in his own little world, to the detriment of the mental health of his wife. P.L. Travers is protective of her intellectual property for a simple reason; she was hurt by the harsh realities of life that her father did not prepare her for and she idolized her Aunt Ellie who came to help the family out when Travers Goth struggled to get sober.

Unfortunately, the explanation is more obvious from the outset than the writers and director would like the viewers to believe. While the first flashbacks are clunky, the leaps between present and past soon even out and the purpose of them becomes painfully obvious. Long before Ellie appears on screen, most viewers will be able to figure out where Saving Mr. Banks is going. Given that, much of Saving Mr. Banks seems unnecessarily drawn out. It makes P.L. Travers no more likable to see her horrible childhood belabored; one good, concise flashback could have gotten across the entire point of the sum of the flashbacks in Saving Mr. Banks.

On a character level, P.L. Travers is not compelling and it is hard to be sympathetic to Travers Goff (he’s not the first alcoholic who ruined his daughter’s life and his traumatizing of her is hardly the most extreme witnessed on screen). By contrast, the acting in Saving Mr. Banks is homogenously wonderful. Emma Thompson is brilliantly grumpy as P.L. Travers and when the writer is not being off-putting, Thompson brings a subtle vulnerability to the character that is well-portrayed. Colin Farrell is virtually unrecognizable as Travers Goff. Farrell is energetic without his trademark sense of irony or the spark of sadism that makes him such a wonderful actor for portraying unstable characters. In Saving Mr. Banks, Farrell proves himself to be a wonderful actor as he plays a part that could be exceptionally familiar for his known range, but he plays the role without any nods to any prior characters he has played. Tom Hanks brings his natural charisma to the role of Walt Disney and he is instantly likable in the part.

Saving Mr. Banks has a wonderful supporting cast as well. Paul Giamatti, a musical Bradley Whitford, the pairing of B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman, and the energetic appearance of Rachel Griffiths midway through the film all enhance an otherwise erratic and often-boring Saving Mr. Banks. The acting is of a wonderfully high caliber.

Unfortunately, the acting does not save the story and make Saving Mr. Banks any more enjoyable to watch.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
The Lone Ranger
Oz The Great And Powerful
John Carter
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Alice In Wonderland
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron

4/10

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

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

All The Elements For Greatness Without The Spark; 12 Years A Slave Is Obvious Oscarbait.

The Good: A number of impressive performances, Characters and a social situation impossible not to empathize with, Direction (cinematographic and musical)
The Bad: A stray performance or two, Utterly unoriginal plot
The Basics: A rare film with all of the key ingredients for greatness, 12 Years A Slave nevertheless lacks a compelling or unique story to sell it to anyone but those still learning rudimentary American (or human) history.


Every year since I began my Best Picture Project (please check it out here, it’s worth reading!), I have been very interested in the yearly Oscar race, especially as it pertains to those films vying for the Best Picture Oscar. I like watching the process the film producers go through in an attempt to market their films specifically for the top prize. This year, one of the obvious contenders is 12 Years A Slave. Fox Searchlight seemed to learn a thing or two from The Help (reviewed here!), which was released too early to get the nominations most predicted it would (a lesson not learned by those who released The Butler). 12 Years A Slave has more than just timing going for it in the race for the Best Picture Oscar, it has a strong social issue and historical story that resonates with Oscar voters.

As well, 12 Years A Slave has an impressive cast with a number of popular, noteworthy, actors who have not won any Oscars – Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch (this does seem to be his year to be in a crapton of movies), and Brad Pitt. But the detraction to 12 Years A Slave for the Oscar race is the fundamental detraction to the film on its own; it’s old news. I’m not sure where in the United States it is considered audacious to admit that the cultural heritage of the United States is a brutal, ugly, racist one. The United States was built through genocide, eviction, slave labor and cruelty, as much as it was by rebellion and a fight for freedom.

Perhaps, then, the hopes director Steve McQueen and Fox Searchlight have with 12 Years A Slave is that seeing the blatant cruelty will feel audacious and different. To that end, 12 Years A Slave is more graphic than Roots, less hopeful or progressive than Glory and far less defiant than The Help. But it’s the same story we’ve seen before . . . over and over again, with only minor differences and a more graphic realism. The thing is, slavery movies are like Holocaust movies; if you’ve seen two or three, you’ve pretty much seen them all. This is not at all to diminish the struggle of any oppressed people (some of the most powerful movies in recent memory have been those that remind the viewer that such struggles continue today and that the apathy of the United States allows continued enslavement, rape, warfare and other atrocities to exist around the world), but it is an acknowledgment that subjugation, degradation, and oppression occur largely the same ways over and over again and they have no inherent entertainment value. 12 Years A Slave is not entertaining; it is informative. It might be this generation’s Roots, but for someone who was raised on Roots, I am shocked by the positive attention the film has garnered from older critics. Perhaps it is actually seeing the elements like Northrup hanging and desperately standing on his tip-toes that has critics impressed; though just as it is horrible for Northrup to witness the many atrocities he does, so too is much of 12 Years A Slave simply horrible for the audience to watch.

In 1841, Solomon Northrup is a freeman living in Saratoga, NY who is known for his violin playing prowess. He is introduced to Mr. Brown and Mr. Hamilton, who hire him to accompany them to Washington, D.C. to perform in their act. There, he gets drunk and he wakes up imprisoned by a man who insists that he is not a freeman, but a runaway slave from Georgia and Solomon is beaten and tortured until he is dragged back to the South. While on the steamboat to the South, Northrup discovers few people willing to risk themselves with an insurrection and Northrup witnesses one of the men stand up to a white man who was dragging his wife off to be raped by one of the sailors and is subsequently killed. Down in Louisiana, Eliza (the mother of two children) and Solomon are sold to Ford.

Ford rejects the blatant racism of his supervisor, Tibeats, and allows Solomon to suggest improvements to the plantation and build on his own. But when Tibeats attempts to beat Solomon for getting a keg of nails, as Tibeats requested, Solomon fights back. He is almost lynched for his rebellious act, but is rescued by Chapin, the foreman. Ford transfers the debt he has on Northrup to the notorious slavebreaker, Epps. Epps threatens the people on his plantation – including using popular torture tactics like waking everyone in the middle of the night for strenuous activity (in this case, a forced dance), changing people’s names, and punishing learning – and Northrup spends his time there living in fear of both Epps and Epps’s wife. While the Lady Epps turns on Edwin for his infidelity with the slaves, Northrup bides his time. In the process, he puts his trust (and life savings) in the hands of the drunk overseer, Armsby, and later places his faith in Bass, as he desperately hopes for his freedom to be restored.

To its credit, 12 Years A Slave uses its impressive cast exceptionally well. Led by Chiwetel Ejiofor, who plays Solomon Northrup, the performers in 12 Years A Slave incredibly create the horrible reality of the antebellum South. Ejiofor has long exhibited exceptional range as an actor – in fact, I can think of no two roles in which I have seen him where he has even a passing comparison to any of his other roles. As Solomon Northrup, Ejiofor continues that tradition. He plays Northrup as a man doing all he can to survive. Ejiofor’s strength is in his eyes; wordlessly in many scenes, Ejiofor’s Northrup witnesses the atrocities done to the people around him and is powerless to stop those injustices. Despite the familiarity of the film’s subject, Ejiofor makes Solomon Northrup’s story seem unique and appropriately heartwrenching.

As much as I love Ejiofor’s performance, the real story for acting in 12 Years A Slave comes from Michael Fassbender. Ejiofor might well be a perfect actor; I’ve never seen him in the same type of role twice and he always lives up to whatever acting challenge exists for the character he is playing (as he does as Solomon Northrup). Michael Fassbender, much like Ryan Gosling, has had one or two great roles and has been used by most directors to simply fill the niche in which he has already exhibited excellence. 12 Years A Slaveshows another level to Fassbender. In addition to completely losing his accent for the role of Epps, Fassbender perfectly portrays cruelty in a way I’ve never seen from him. There is nothing cold or stiff in his performance of Epps. Instead, Fassbender plays Epps with a palpable malice and a seething hatred that is absolutely unlike, for example, his role as David in Prometheus (reviewed here!).

The rest of the cast is good, though a few members of the cast do seem to have been cast on hype as opposed to substance. Garret Dillahunt easily outshines Benedict Cumberbatch as the brief role of Armsby has more depth to it than Cumberbatch’s one-note performance as Ford (Ford being presented with virtually the same façade as Cumberbatch brought to Sherlock Holmes and Khan). Brad Pitt, Alfre Woodard, and Paul Giamatti have decent supporting performances, though the former two are largely playing to their strengths. Director Steve McQueen even gets a good performance out of Taran Killam, who has none of the goofiness he illustrates in his characters on Saturday Night Live, even though the role of Hamilton is pretty much a “blink and you miss it” performance.

McQueen also gets a lot of credit for the look and feel of 12 Years A Slave. The cinematography in 12 Years A Slave is excellent and McQueen has an excellent sensibility for movement and framing. Moments like the revelation of Epps’s wife onscreen goading Epps into whipping his mistress over a bar of soap are incredibly well-presented. The disembodied voice materializes into a devil-on-the-shoulder and the suffering that results is stomach-clenching painful to watch. As well, McQueen is smart enough not to do what Mel Gibson did with The Passion Of The Christ (reviewed here!); he does not make a gore film out of illustrating the lash of the whips and the subsequent flaying of the skin. McQueen illustrates the human suffering with minimal gore and that makes a much more profound statement on the horrors of the torment of the people in the film; McQueen’s focus is on the enduring pain after the whipping stops, not on the moment of rending flesh.

Ultimately, the climax is hardly fulfilling and 12 Years A Slave feels more like a documentary than anything audacious or personal. The story of Solomon Northrup illustrates well the atrocious conditions that existed in the antebellum south and the human suffering that resulted from generations of social and economic institutions built by the slave trade. While not every film needs to be entertaining, each story should have a spark, an originality, that resonates. 12 Years A Slave has everything but the spark of originality; it has an impressive cast, well-defined characters, decent direction and a historical truth never illustrated quite this way on screen, but the story is unfortunately familiar and students of American history will find no new lessons to be learned here.

For other works with Benedict Cumberbatch, please check out my reviews of:
August: Osage County
The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Atonement
Fortysomething

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

8/10 (Not Recommended)

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

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

Wonderful Save The Genre Conceits: The Negotiator Holds Up!

The Good: Acting, Plot development, Mood
The Bad: Somewhat light on character development, No DVD extras
The Basics: The Negotiator is a clever, tense thriller that illustrates just what an amazing cast can do for a crime drama!


Lately, I have been returning to some of my favorite films of my youth and at the top of my list of movies I was eager to re-experience as an adult was The Negotiator. I remembered seeing The Negotiator, but recalled surprisingly few of the specifics. I knew that it was a movie I came to with a love of the works of Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson and that the top billing for the film was a powerhouse move. I remember seeing The Negotiator with my dad, who complimented the film as great for the casting. I remember him saying – and now, having rewatched it, I find myself agreeing – that what made The Negotiator so good was that both men played characters that could so plausibly be police negotiators. At the time, I think I dismissed that as just good casting, but every moment of The Negotiator is a study of truly great acting. From the powerhouses who get top billing to the people who appeared in almost nothing else I’d ever seen who play off them – most notably Siobhan Fallon - The Negotiator is an impressive dramatic thriller.

The Negotiator has a stellar cast and is exciting in a timeless way. Rewatching it, I became worried that the opening credits telegraphed far too much of the underlying character issues that would make the “whodunit” almost irrelevant. Fortunately, director F. Gary Gray is not that dimwitted and the film is smart enough to keep enough surprises for the final act to make the film exciting to watch and rewatch.

Danny Roman is an exceptionally successful police negotiator in Chicago. After he helps save the life of a girl, the Department is partying (despite some feeling that Roman is a bit reckless). Roman’s partner takes him away from the party to tell him he has information on who robbed the police disability fund. When Danny gets a page from his partner the next night, he arrives and finds his partner and friend dead. With Danny implicated, Roman feels that there is a conspiracy tightening around him. Going after his only lead, Internal Affairs Inspector Terence Niebaum, Roman hits a roadblock and becomes convinced he has the rat who his partner was leading him to. In a moment of anger, Roman turns the tables on Niebaum and takes Niebaum, his assistant Maggie and a police snitch who is in Niebaum’s office at the time, hostage.

As Police Chief Al Travis has the Chicago police converge upon the administrative building and put Roman in the crosshairs, Danny Roman demands police negotiator Chris Sabian deal with him. Sabian struggles to make it across town to meet Roman’s deadline, but soon he begins negotiations for the lives of the hostages (which also include Roman’s professional ally Grant Frost). After a botched raid – which gives Roman two new hostages and soon leads to casualties – Sabian begins to see that Roman may be onto something in declaring his innocence. With the aid of Niebaum’s computers, Roman learns about an insurance scam that has robbed the Chicago police officers of almost two million dollars. With enemies in the police force gunning for him, Danny Roman finds an unlikely ally in Chris Sabian as they work to expose the guilty parties within the department.

The Negotiator has enough character to it to push it well above the usual thriller. It might not be as stylish as, for example, The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!), but it is tense and engaging and the performances are top notch. Chris Sabian brings most of the film’s humor to The Negotiator by being unpredictable. Kevin Spacey’s first scene in The Negotiator is a clever personal scene wherein Chris Sabian tries to negotiate with his wife and daughter – unsuccessfully. The overt humor there turns to a very different type of humor when Sabian risks everything by hanging up on Danny Roman when Roman starts making his demands.

The plot to The Negotiator unfolds well. The chain of events that come from Danny Roman reacting and then taking control of his investigation is thrilling to watch. The aid of Rudy and Maggie, Roman and Sabian begin to find the truth . . . and they begin to forge a bond that leads to a very satisfying end.

Along with Samuel L. Jackson and Kevin Spacey, The Negotiator uses the talents of Ron Rifkin, John Spencer, Paul Giamatti, J.T. Walsh, and (to a lesser extent) David Morse very well. All of the men in The Negotiator, as well as Siobhan Fallon and Regina Taylor, give nuanced performances that are dramatic and compelling.

One of the few enduring issues with The Negotiator is the same as with the recent Blu-Ray release for The American President (reviewed here!); the studios did not invest in any bonus features for the DVD release. The result is that viewers are not treated to stories from on the set or featurettes on the making of the film and that is unfortunate.

But The Negotiator is another impressive film where the source material outweighs any of the problems with the digital media for it. Setting a standard for character, performance and plot, The Negotiator is a tight and enjoyable thriller well worth watching.

For other works with Samuel L. Jackson, please visit my reviews of:
”0-8-4” - Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Marvel Universe Phase 1
The Other Guys
The Clone Wars
Farce Of The Penguins
The Star Wars Prequel Trilogy
Kill Bill, Vol. 2
The Incredibles
XXX
Changing Lanes
Unbreakable
The Red Violin
Jackie Brown
Hard Eight
Pulp Fiction
Jurassic Park

8.5/10

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

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

One Of The Most Boring Modern Philosophy Works, Cosmopolis Drags.

The Good: Direction is good, Moments of themes
The Bad: Awkward acting, Unlikable characters, Virtually plotless
The Basics: A droning, plodding film about the last day of a tycoon, Cosmopolis is boring instead of audacious.


I like complicated movies. I like complicated and smart movies. In fact, one of my favorite films of all time is Magnolia (reviewed here!) and that film is smart, complex, and exceptionally layered. What separates it from being pretentious is the fact that the characters resonate with genuine human emotions. At the end of it all, the themes explore deeper, universal truths about humanity. It is complicated and smart without being pretentious. I loathe pretentious movies.

Cosmopolis is nothing but pretension. Filled with pretense, characters who speak almost exclusively in riddles, and themes that are presented almost to the exclusion of the characters who embody or articulate the themes, Cosmopolis is a very pretentious film. I suspect that it is solely the fact that writer David Cronenberg’s project that got Cosmopolis made. Cosmopolis is based upon a novel and it is worth mentioning that I have not read that book, so this is a very pure review of the film Cosmopolis.

Eric Packer is a hugely successful young businessman who leaves work in his limo to go get a haircut across town. He spends the ride with his analyst and longtime business partner, Shiner, who assures him the business is secure. He abruptly leaves his limo to meet Elise, a young blonde who insists she likes riding in taxis and seems mostly immune to his charms. After getting back in his limo, Eric has sex with a different woman and continues his trip across town. Over the course of a full day, he meets with anti-capitalist protestors, hookers, and the manager of a black musician who died of natural causes and whose funeral, like the protest, blocks Eric’s way. He meets with Elise again, at a bookstore and at a hotel after he has sex with a different woman.

After night falls, Eric ends up at the barber he set out to meet. En route, he is assaulted by an artist who smacks him in the face with a custard. Impulsively, Eric kills his own bodyguard and gets his hair cut. After returning the graffiti-stained limo to its berth, Eric ends up in the lair of a man who has been out to kill him all day and the two face off for a conversation that reveals Eric’s place in the Capitalist machine.

I’m an anti-capitalist (not as freakish or maniacal as the ones in Cosmopolis), so when I write that Cosmopolis is boring and jumbled, it is not because I do not understand the perspective of the anti-capitalists. Instead, I find Cosmopolis loathsome because the characters are vacuous, largely flat and monolithic, the plot is dull and drags on largely uneventfully and the performances are so stiff as to make Robert Pattinson’s portrayal of Edward Cullen in The Twilight Saga (reviewed here!) look positively charismatic and exciting. As it is, though, the film is so deliberately opaque through most of the film that I had to look up what the relationship between Eric and Elise actually was. Sure, they mention being married in Cosmopolis, but they are so passionless, detached from one another and speak in circles so frequently, that it was not entirely clear in the film that they were actually married to one another. Moreover, the fact that Eric has sex with at least two other women in the course of the film did not make their relationship clearer.

I was a bit miffed to see that Cosmopolis is considered science fiction (by some); the only aspect of science fiction in the film by my reckoning is the voice-activated firearm used by Torval. And even that did not seem any more fantastic than the fingerprint-activated firearm used in Skyfall (reviewed here!). The rest of the movie seems to be remarkably straightforward in its technology and themes. When those themes are made clear, about the way capitalism destroys the masses to benefit the few and dehumanizes those who control the wealth of others, Cosmopolis is more than just all right. Unfortunately, it seldom does that.

Instead, Cosmopolis is largely a guy we don’t care about stuck in a traffic jam all day. He uses his massive limo as an office, taking on visitors throughout the day and very few of them are actually interesting or engaging enough to justify the almost two hours of boredom that the film includes. He fucks two women, flirts with two others (one of whom is his wife) and all the encounters are equally unmemorable. In fact, the only bit of amusement in the entirety of Cosmopolis for me was the discussion Eric has with the musician who did not die. The two talk about how it’s almost a shame that the dead rapper did not get to go out in a blaze of glory; he simply died of natural causes.

Throughout Cosmopolis, there are references to the visiting president and currency fluctuations, but Eric receives the news and reacts to it all blandly. This forces Robert Pattinson, who plays Eric, to present a great deal of exposition, which he does with a stiffness that is almost inhuman. In fact, the scene in which Eric is having his prostate examined while flirting is so dryly delivered, it is only the camera angles and intercuts to the doctor that inform the viewer what is happening to the protagonist.

Sadly, the film’s ultimate antagonist, played by Paul Giamatti, comes into the film far too late to engage the viewer. Moreover, in a complete failure of casting, Giamatti’s first appearance on screen is conspicuous. The role of Benno Levin should have gone to a complete unknown; when Paul Giamatti walks by the limo early in the film, he sticks out like a sore thumb. Amid all the pedestrians, I found myself exclaiming, “Hey, that’s Paul Giamatti!” And, given that this is not an Edward Hitchcock film and Paul Giamatti is not assuming a Hitchcockian cameo, the viewer is tipped off early and simply waiting through a particularly droll day for Giamatti to pop back up.

Benno Levin’s part in the film is not one that is hard to be sympathetic to, but it is not incredible-enough to justify the rest of the movie. Had the narrative technique been something more interesting, even a Memento-esque retracing presentation, the film might have been a little more engaging. As it is, the film is stiff and demanding upon the viewer, with little real reward for the viewer’s attention. In other words, it is all pretense, with little payoff.

For other films focused on big business and tycoons, please check out my reviews of:
Margin Call
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Thank You For Smoking

1.5/10

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

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

Who Is This Deceiving? Duplicity Is Much More Average Than Extraordinary.

The Good: Decent enough acting, Moments of plot
The Bad: Pacing, Light on character
The Basics: Slower than expected, Duplicity lacks real substance or smarts and leaves those who love spy or espionage films disappointed, despite the casting.


Sometimes, with all of the previews I see given all of the movies in theaters I take in, I am astonished to find a movie that has little to it outside the previews. In fact, while I often complain about how previews in the last few years show the entire movie, it is rare that I run into a film where that is almost literally true. And it might seem odd to preface my review of the two hour five minute movie Duplicity with that remark, but the three minute preview trailer shows almost the entire film, at least the portions with dialogue, outside the final five minutes. Seriously. More troubling than the conspiracy elements - something which I was baffled to discover people in the theater with me today did not understand given they were spelled out pretty explicitly in the final five minutes of the movie - was the fact that almost every line of dialogue and certainly every key bit of information about Duplicity is contained within the preview trailer for the film.

No, there is almost no additional substance outside what one might have seen in a preview to Duplicity. The film is a series of jumps in time returning viewers to a point five years prior, then successively closer intervals to "now," but outside that narrative technique and the movie's final resolution, there are no real surprises, no substantial differences and certainly no depth between the preview trailer and the actual film. For those who love espionage movies, then, this is a tremendous disappointment.

Ray Koval is working corporate security for Equikrom, a personal care/wellness and beauty company which is bitter rivals with Burkett Randle, when he is assigned to meet the Equikrom mole within Burkett Randle. Much to his chagrin, he discovers that his contact is none other than Claire Stenwick, a former CIA agent who burned Koval years prior as part of an espionage mission while Koval was working for MI-6. Now acting as her handler, Ray brings the corporate security and espionage department of Equikrom a true grail, the rough draft of a speech by the head of Burkett Randle, Tully, wherein the CEO of BR alludes to a massive new product the company will be rolling out which will finally sink Equikrom once and for all. Ray and his team begin hunting for the product to beat Burkett Randle to a patent to prevent the company's destruction.

But Ray and Claire's initial confrontation is an elaborate setup on the part of the former intelligence operatives, begun two years prior in Rome. As the current hunt for the new product unfolds with Claire inside Burkett Randle running a confidence game there by exposing Ray at Equikrom at every possible opportunity, Ray and Claire consider the meetings in the past two years that led them to this particular job. As the pair nears the end of their high tech heist, they must choose to trust one another or make the score for only themselves.

Duplicity is told with a main timeline in the "present" with Ray and Claire - after the opening scene - clearly working with one another to acquire the unknown product first, not to rescue Equikrom, but to sell on their own for all the money they want to be able to retire. Now in New York City as the trail of evidence that seems to lead to the mystery product puts Ray and Claire in a game of wits against their respective coworkers in corporate counterintelligence, the story is interspersed with London eighteen months ago, Miami fourteen months ago, and Cleveland three months ago with the backstory of how Ray and Claire came to trust one another and the tests to their faith in one another. It is from mostly the flashbacks that the clips shown on television and before other movies come, but they capture the flirtatious and problematic nature of the relationship between Ray and Claire.

Perhaps Duplicity would have worked better have Clive Owen not appeared so recently in The International, which had him in a similar role trying to track down another corporate conspiracy. One suspects that would not have made a significant amount of difference, though, as Duplicity does not focus all that much on character to begin with. Instead, there is a lot of dialogue that is essentially plot exposition and given the level of explanation that all of the characters give as to what is going on, it baffled me that anyone who could see would leave the theater confused as to what ultimately happens. Indeed, all one has to do at the end is recognize the characters who are standing in a room together and realize where they have seen them in the film before that last five minutes and it becomes pretty obvious exactly what has happened throughout the film.

That said, Duplicity - via writer and director Tony Gilroy - makes a passing effort to present a character struggle in the film. This takes the form of Ray and Claire alternately putting everything on the line for one another or not trusting the other and appearing to work in their own self interest as opposed to part of a whole. The problem here is that the story can go only one of two ways: either Ray and Claire are in it together and are deceiving others or they are in it for themselves. Either of those choices is resolved either with the pair pulling it off together or there being a betrayal that is revealed at the end to thwart one or both of them. Duplicity only works if there seems to be a credible threat that either of the pair is ready to bail on the other and cheat at their overall scheme for their own self interest.

Here Gilroy undermines his own attempt. Because the viewer sees Ray and Claire planning their scheme for years and testing one another well before the actual plan is initiated, the viewer never truly believes that they are not together with their plan, working together even when it appears they are turning on one another. In other words, because the viewer sees the character work and trust built before the actions have consequences - through the flashbacks whenever the main plotline gets slower - we fail to believe that any of their actions are not part of some intricate and elaborate plan on their parts.

Even more disturbing is the concept that for all of the attempts at the pretense of a character struggle dealing with how spies might actually have relationships and learn to trust one another after lying for a living, is the fact that Gilroy never gives the viewer adequate reason for the spies heading off in the direction they are. Ray and Claire meet up in Rome have three days worth of lovemaking and Claire asks Ray how much money he thinks they would need in order to stay in Rome and make love the rest of their lives. From that point on, they each set out to develop a scheme that will net them a forty million dollar nest egg to retire from the spy business on.

But the fundamental question that is not answered is: Why do these two spies only have patience to develop a scheme as opposed to work for a couple of years to earn the same amount of money? Corporate spies like Ray and Claire must make a ton of money. Ray, for example, illustrates that the frozen pizza business is a multi-billion dollar business in the United States. So, one has to imagine - especially in these times when executive bonuses are being so closely scrutinized and widely reported - that if your head of corporate counterintelligence manages to thwart a competitor's attempt to steal a product worth hundreds of millions of dollars that counterintelligence agent would receive a pretty hefty bonus for their work. Neither Ray nor Claire ever exhibits a reason for their sense of need for a ticking clock. Why are they willing to work two years to abandon their lives as trusted assets in the intelligence community instead of working for ten years to get the money legitimately? This, the character element, is the only thing that makes no real sense in Duplicity.

As a result, the heads of each company, Tully and Dick Garsick, have more motivation than Claire or Ray ever have. Tully and Garsick want to destroy each other so their business - and only their business - will survive. As a result, they are willing to be ruthless with one another. But Claire is a former CIA agent and Ray is former MI-6 and the only reason either leaves the principled world of legitimate international spying is to go off and become corporate spies, a job each intends to betray their employer while doing. The thing here is as members of MI-6 and the CIA, there ought to be an underlying assumption that the spy is principled; they are loyal to their country or cause. Yet that is not evident in Claire or Ray.

As for the acting, it is nothing extraordinary. Frankly, Julia Roberts was better or more involved in her role in Charlie Wilson's War (reviewed here!) than in Duplicity and Clive Owen seems to be relying mostly on his penetrating eyes to sell himself as Ray. In fact, as far as the acting goes, all Duplicity does is force the question of why Clive Owen isn't playing James Bond. The other principle actors, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, fall along the lines of expected greatness. Their roles are remarkably small, they do them as well as they can and there is not much substance to their acting as a result.

Ultimately, Duplicity is a remarkably average corporate spy flick where everything blandly progresses toward a final revelation in the last five minutes that would be interesting if the rest of the movie had been worthwhile up until that point.

For other works with Tom Wilkinson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
The Green Hornet
Valkyrie
Batman Begins
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
The Girl With The Pearl Earring
Shakespeare In Love
Smilla’s Sense Of Snow

5/10

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

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

Illusions Of Originality, Realities Of Disappointment: The Illusionist

The Good: Moments of plot, Moments of acting, Special effects
The Bad: Light on character, Predictable, Derivative, Inconsistent accents
The Basics: In The Illusionist, which is filmed big, the viewer waits for something remarkable and instead finds something exceptionally common.


It was not my idea to watch The Illusionist, but out of the choices I was presented, it seemed like the best option of the bunch. Having now watched it, I wonder what I was missing by not seeing Quills. The Illusionist suffers from a death of a thousand cuts, but fundamentally it was unworthy of recommendation for its lack of originality. Neil Burger essentially rewrites The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) as a love story and it's fairly blah.

Eisenheim, a young illusionist, has exceptional talent. As a child he had a brief infatuation with Sophie, a girl of a better station in life. Separated by finances and social standing, Sophie and Eisenheim separate and are reunited years later in Vienna where they rekindle their love. Sophie, unfortunately, is soon to be wed to the Crown Prince Leopold who is the jealous type. When Sophie is killed, Eisenheim's illusions seem to conjure her and Inspector Uhl is caught between righting a murder and the obligations of protecting the monarchy.

Now the thing is, I respect some of the bigger actors in The Illusionist. Rufus Sewell, who plays the Crown Prince Leopold, was amazing in Dark City (reviewed here!) Edward Norton was fabulous in The 25th Hour (reviewed here!). Unfortunately, The Illusionist does not make use of most of the acting talents in the movie. Edward Norton and Jessica Biel (Sophie) fail to carry their accents, making many of the moments of their performances worthy of wincing. Rufus Sewell is outfitted with the most ridiculous looking mustache seen in film since . . . well, possibly ever.

The only actor who stood out for me was Paul Giamatti. Giamatti gained my attention for his role as the artistic buffoon in Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) where I had the sense he was being underused. Here Giamatti shines with an intellectual performance that rightfully earns him second billing. Giamatti is convincing as Uhl and his conflict, that of morality vs. preservation of State is the only truly original aspect of The Illusionist. He steals every scene he is in.

The other noteworthy aspect of The Illusionist is the quality of the special effects. The Illusionist utilizes state of the art special effects and there is no sense of that in the film. That is to say, we never truly feel like we are watching a special effects movie. Instead, this has the feel of watching an actual magic show, with all of the clever insinuations of bending reality and misdirection that comes with that.

Unfortunately, the one performance and the effects are not enough to save The Illusionist. Its pacing is way off, with a strong beginning that quickly degenerates into a series of plodding events that make the viewer wish we were back at the beginning already. The film is unnaturally slow and it is disturbing to watch the pace of the movie abruptly hit the breaks. I was mildly surprised to see the movie was 110 minutes; the film had the feel of being barely 90 minutes with much of the time being spent with filler to get it up to the minimum recommended length. In short, what Burger might have intended to use to set mood merely delays the inevitable.

Sadly, the romance in The Illusionist is nothing to write home about. There is no chemistry between Biel and Norton and less between Biel and Sewell. Instead, we are subjected to generally passionless characters acting or reacting with the supposed motivations of love and jealousy that the viewer never feels is a serious motivation for any of the characters involved.

And there are nitpicky details, which are almost always a problem in movies that hinge on a reversal like the one required to end The Illusionist. So, for example, Inspector Uhl returns to where he believes Sophie was killed some time after her murder and finds a clue. He finds the clue in the hay in a stable. Unless these are the cleanest horses in history, given that some time has passed, one would think the hay would have been changed. This is just one of the things that leaps instantly into my mind.
More problematic are the character aspects and how the actors attempt and surrender accents at various points in the movie. Regardless of the minutiae, the resolution to The Illusionist is terrible and it boggles my mind how the movie was made given that the end is such an obvious rip-off of The Usual Suspects, which is a vastly superior film.

For other films with magic as a component, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Death Defying Acts
The Last Airbender
The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

4.5/10

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.
| | |