Underwhelming And Real, The Counselor Crashes.

The Good: Decent writing, Fair direction
The Bad: Characters are virtually impossible to empathize with, No stellar performances
The Basics: In The Counselor, Ridley Scott finds it impossible to make Cormac McCarthy’s characters interesting – though he has performers who present their lines well and he directs the stark film well.


What do you do, if you’re a big Hollywood director, who has spent two years working on one of the biggest, most ambitious, science fiction films of the year? In the case of Ridley Scott, apparently, you move onto something smaller, more manageable, and much more real. Following his immersion in the creation of Prometheus (reviewed here!), Scott opted to direct the latest cinematic endeavor of Cormac McCarthy’s The Counselor. While the adaptation of McCarthy’s No Country For Old Men (reviewed here!) went on to win the Best Picture Oscar, there is virtually no hope that The Counselor will follow in that tradition.

The fault does not go to Scott, who does everything he can to use the film medium well. The Counselor looks good, though there is a prevalence of sun-washed scenes that becomes tiresome to the eyes. And many of the lines delivered in The Counselor are actually clever. But the fundamental problem with the film’s writing is that those lines are either incongruent to the realism of the film (real people do not speak in eloquent generalizations) or the performers deliver them as if they are just lines (without developing a forceful sense of the character’s reality to back them up). This is especially problematic for Cameron Diaz’s Malkina (who is essentially a manipulative archetype).

In Mexico, smugglers cleverly use a septic tank service to hide their cocaine, which they then smuggle over the U.S. border into Texas. In Amsterdam, The Counselor buys a ring for his girlfriend, Laura, despite being worried that the big diamond will attract the wrong kind of attention to her. After he proposes (Laura agrees to marry him), The Counselor and Laura attend a party thrown by Reiner, who has an interest in power . . . and how The Counselor is not rising to his full potential given his influence. After Westray pitches the Counselor on an exceptional drug deal (despite warning him that it might not be worth getting involved in), The Counselor is seen actually doing his job, in the form of getting his client’s son, The Green Hornet, bailed out of prison.

But, when the Green Hornet is killed and the drug stash is stolen, The Counselor is implicated. As Riener, the Wireman, and a notorious drug cartel all battle for control of the stolen drugs, the Counselor is drawn in. In an effort to rescue Laura, who has been kidnapped by the cartel, The Counselor meets with the Jefe, though all his efforts might be for naught as the Jefe is not the true power behind the debacle.

The Counselor is one of those unfortunate thrillers where the establishing information in the movie reveals enough to make the seasoned filmgoer have a pretty good idea who the real villain is. This is an unfortunate occurrence for The Counselor in that the movie spends so much time on the red herrings, shootouts and chases that the human interactions that motivate all of them are sorely neglected. Instead of being smart and challenging, the viewer sits it out, waiting for the big reveal.

The big reveal comes at the expense of making the title character truly resonate. When The Counselor falls out of the film, there are so few characters left that the remainder of the film is spent with the villain almost out of default.

None of the characters are particularly empathetic. In fact, arguably the most realistic and human character is Laura, but she is so thinly rendered in The Counselor that the viewer cares only in the abstract (and for the effect it has on the Counselor) when she is kidnapped. The Counselor’s moral ambiguity makes it difficult to root for him . . . his bad choices get him embroiled in the entire drug smuggling debacle, so the damage he suffers and the collateral damage to those around him is more predictable than shocking.

On the acting front, The Counselor features a talented cast, used in the most mediocre fashion. Cameron Diaz is stiff and abstractly philosophical with her lines for the bulk of her scenes in the film. Michael Fassbender shows none of his innate charisma and does not seem like a powerful or particularly smart individual, which is imperative for the viewer to believe in order for The Counselor to work. Javier Bardem, Brad Pitt and Penelope Cruz do not give the viewer anything they have not seen in previous films.

In all, The Counselor is a fairly transparent thriller that is heavy on the themes, low on the thrills. In the end, that makes it entirely forgettable.

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

3.5/10

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

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

Old Friends Fail To Entertain With Sex And The City 2!

The Good: Moments of cinematography, Moments of humor
The Bad: Characters are stalled, Not terribly funny, No great acting, Overly familiar
The Basics: A droll sequel that feels like one, Sex And The City 2 is a series of recycled plots and character moments that only the die-hard fans are likely to endure.


The very best cinematic follow-ups to television shows ought to either continue the adventures and character development from the small screen or tell a completely new story that utilizes the characters in a way that the small screen never could. Some of the best series’­ avoid the temptation to tell more story (Lost’s recent series finale, for example, left plenty of story opportunities open that one may only hope never get ruined by a sub-standard cinematic sequel) and let the series rest where it ended. Sex And The City is not like that. Sadly, almost as soon as it was off the air, the film was announced and shortly thereafter, Sex And The City 2 was announced. This, alas, could have been a fan-loved film that brought new fans to the series, but instead it has the feel of being an entirely cheap sequel.

Truth be told, I did not see the first cinematic Sex And The City, but the film catches viewers up very quickly before launching into the “new” story. I write new in quotes because the story has been done to death on the television show, it is just done in a different setting in Sex And The City 2. I gave up on Sex And The City after Season 3 and not only did I not feel at all lost with where Sex And The City 2 went, but I didn’t feel like I was watching anything I had not already seen before. Indeed, all but one of the major characters in Sex And The City 2 were present in the television series by season three (the holdout being Charlotte’s husband Harry).

Sex And The City 2 opens with what one has to assume is a favorite bit of fanfic, which finds Carrie Bradshaw meeting Samantha, Charlotte and Miranda in the early 1980s. After they befriend one another, the film shifts gears to the present day (two years after the first movie). Carrie is in a rut with Mr. Big, who wants to stay in when she wants to go out at night and Charlotte’s life is overrun by her children. An old beau of Samantha, a movie producing sheik, asks for Samantha’s help on a movie shoot and offers to fly her and her friends over to Abu Dhabi to consult on his film. This getaway for the four friends seems perfect.

But while in Abu Dhabi, temptation rears its ugly head. Carrie meets up with her former lover, Aiden and sees his being there as a sign. When they kiss, Carrie has a crisis of conscience and debates on whether or not to tell her husband. Charlotte’s eye wanders while away from Harry and Miranda enjoys the sun and tries to advise Carrie on how to handle her situation. But soon, Samantha’s sexual antics have the quartet on the run from the more conservative elements in the Middle East.

Basically, it’s Sex And The City before it degenerates into “ethnic mismatch comedy” of the most generic sort. Most of the movie is spend in Abu Dhabi and while this initially seems like it might shake up the Sex And The City formula, it fails to. Running into Aiden in Abu Dhabi is much the same as it was when Carrie randomly ran into him in New York City in season three of the television show. In fact, the whole movie ultimately has the feel of the Los Angeles arc that the television show did, just in a different sunny city.

The problem, of course, is in a formulaic plot that keeps the characters ultimately stagnant. This is not Married Life (reviewed here!), it’s Sex And The City and as such, there has to be sex, melodrama and moralizing in an over-the-top way about decisions most people are actually smart enough to avoid by not putting themselves into the initial, problematic situations that force the decisions. Miranda is a virtual nonentity in this film, which makes one wonder why Cynthia Nixon bothered to come back. Sure, Nixon and Miranda have a sage-like quality and is fun to watch, but there are no great character leaps for Miranda in this outing. Similarly, Samantha is still a hornball and Charlotte is still trying to be the faithful “good girl” long past when she last actually was one (in the series her character loses her initial path ridiculously quickly).

But then there is Carrie. In Sex And The City 2, Carrie is a homogeneously uninteresting character. She spent years hunting Mr. Big and now that she has him, she doesn’t know whether or not she wants (or how) to keep him. Their sexual magnetism - which some would have argued was more assumed than shown on-screen anyway - is largely drained and whether or not Carrie feels it, it is hard for the viewer not to feel like she has made the wrong decision. That is, until Aiden appears. The appearance of Aiden could have been a huge thing for the fans, but the truth is, when he appears, the result is more of a groan than an excited gasp. Aiden’s appearance feels contrived and Carrie’s debating on how improbable his appearance is makes it feel more contrived, not less.

Ultimately, Sex And The City 2 does not add to the acting range of Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristen Davis or Cynthia Nixon, it simply allows them to once again step into the familiar shoes (metaphorically) of the characters that they embodied for years. There is nothing truly new here and too many of the moments in the film have the principles looking bored with the material, like they know they have said similar lines before. I know I’ve heard the lines from them before, so that reaction is absolutely no surprise.

For other Sex And The City reviews, please visit:
Sex And The City - Season 3
Sex And The City - Season 2
Sex And The City - Season 1

3/10

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

© 2013, 2010 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

No, Bandidas Is Not A Latina Bound . . .

The Good: Generally good acting, Social messages
The Bad: Straightforward plot, Penelope Cruz, Characters are all "types"
The Basics: With Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz playing "types" in a Hispanosploitation buddy movie, the viewer is mildly entertained if one does not think of the implications.


Recently, on an episode of Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip (reviewed here!), one of the characters makes a comment on white people and a woman in the room looks offended and says, "I'm not white, I'm English!" Darius laughs at that and tells her, "I've got to use that." In a society obsessed with dividing people up by "ethnic groups," especially based on skin color, such distinctions as "white" vs. "English" seem funny or esoteric. Similarly, to most people who aren't of the ethnicity, the distinction between "Latino" and "Hispanic" is not immediately apparent. It's a whole silly way of identifying people. Ever consider just how silly grouping people by skin color is, as opposed to say hair color or eye color? It's all reductive, grouping individuals together by a single common trait. I begin with this because I do not wish to offend anyone with my use (possibly coining) of the term "hispanosploitation." Is Bandidas the harbinger of the hispanosploitation film?

When Mexican landowners are being killed by Americans to build a railroad for wealthy investors, two young women, Sara and Maria strike back. Sara, an elite, is the daughter of the bank's owner and is motivated by revenge when her father is killed. Maria, a commoner, is lost in a male-dominated society when her father is killed and she seizes the opportunity to rob banks to save Mexico from the invading Americans. Aided by a forensic scientist, Quentin, the pair robs banks and works to uncover the robbing of their land.

The term "guilty pleasure" is elitist, implying that a work being mostly "fun" is somehow worth less than a serious, presumably higher quality endeavor. Bandidas is not so much a potential guilty pleasure - for those who would feel guilt at watching Salma Hayek run around for an hour and a half - as it is a weird Hispanosploitation endeavor. In the 70s, Blacksploitation movies sprouted up with strong black protagonists who almost universally overcame the (white) Man to do good by the black community. Almost everything was framed in ethnic terms, production values often were lower giving the films a camp quality and the overwhelming social message from them ultimately became, "We can make crappy movies, too, but, hey! we're all the same." It's a good message. It's a questionable medium.

As a potential Hispanosploitation film, Bandidas has all the critical elements. The protagonists Maria and Sara embody the cultural heritage of the different strata of the culture they seek to represent. Maria represents the strong working class drive to preserve cultural heritage and overcome outside influence, Sara represents the one who plays within the dominant (or dominating) system until it hits her personally and she uses her knowledge of that system to overcome it with her newfound rebirth cultural identity. Ultimately, Maria and Sara are simply types, not actual characters.

And in that way, Bandidas plays it way too safe, even as a quasi-hispanosploitation film. In order to achieve their goals, Maria and Sara must rely on white men. Quentin, once convinced to aid their cause, essentially becomes the brains of the operation. In order to start robbing banks, the pair seeks out Jackson, who was a successful bank robber. The point here is that if Bandidas is a Hispanosploitation film, it's trapped within the framework it seeks to challenge. Maria and Sara do not succeed based on their own skills, cultural pride and Woman Power, they become a force because they are mentored by a man who teaches them and aided by a man who is superior to Sara. In short, Maria's skill is force and she is inferior to Jackson, Sara's skill is education and hers is inferior to Quentin. They need the men to succeed.

That's too bad, though I guess it shows that we're all the same. Or, more likely, it reinforces The Way Things Are (i.e. "stay in your place") as opposed to The Way Things Should Be. A far better example of this is Bound (review here!). In Bound, two strong women - relying only on one another - team up and take on the mob. If it were to be considered lesbosploitation (I think it's deeper than that), at least the heroines prove their worth based on their own merits. In Bandidas, that is not the case.

In fact, the more I write about this, the less I like the implications of the movie. Sure, it's a fun movie. I was expecting it to be completely campy and dumb. While watching it, though, it was easy to get into. If one is not thinking of the bigger picture societal messages involved, it's probably a much better film. If one thinks about how the Latino/Hispanic vote is being courted - especially by the Christian Coalition - Bandidas carries a much more insidious message, which one might suggest is "If you want power in our society, you need us to get it." That's a terrible message.

Truth be told, this movie is not as bad as Shark Tale (reviewed here!) (if you want racism, there's a great example!). So, I can understand why Salma Hayek (whose work I respect) took the job. Sara is a fairly strong female character. I always understand why Penelope Cruz takes work (I'm not a fan of her work), so that she is playing an archetype of ignorance doesn't so much bother me. Cruz continues her pattern - in movies I've seen her in - of flat-affect performing that is passionless and uninspired.

It is Steve Zahn who becomes enjoyable to watch in Bandidas. While Sara and Maria descend into terribly stereotypical catfighting, Zahn as Quentin becomes a voice of reason uniting the two sides. Zahn mixes reason and comic presentation to create a character that keeps the movie moving.

Salma Hayek gives a good performance, working well within the role written for her. She's always fun to watch. I enjoyed her more in Ask The Dust, but here she does an adequate job as well.

If this is the harbinger of a new cinematic movement, one hopes that those it is geared toward - primarily the Latino and Hispanic communities - will ask for more. Get real heroes who can overcome without depending on those they are building cultural identity to overcome. An occasionally fun, but thoroughly predictable movie, Bandidas is rainy Saturday material. If you want a serious, better alternative, Bound is it.

For other movies starring Penelope Cruz, check out my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
G-Force
Volver
Vanilla Sky
All The Pretty Horses
Woman On Top

4.5/10

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

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

Movies I Was Supposed To Like More Than I Actually Did, Vol. 1: Volver!

The Good: Decent enough writing, Color contrast, Moments of character
The Bad: Predictable plot, Much of the acting, Quite a bit of exposition
The Basics: With one of my weakest recommendations ever, Volver presents itself as a remarkably average film that beats the viewer over the head with the theme and little else.


Every now and again, a film is strongly recommended to me and I give it a fair viewing based on the strength of that recommendation coming from people whose views and opinions I usually trust and appreciate. In a conversation about actress Penelope Cruz some time ago, a family member strongly recommended Volver. I had gone on about how the star of Woman On Top (reviewed here!) had never truly impressed me, but my family member insisted that I needed to give Volver a fair chance.

It took me four attempts to get through this film. Four tries and to be fair to the movie, the first attempt came when I started watching at night after being a bit exhausted. But considering that two subsequent attempts resulted in a narcoleptic reaction while the sun was shining, I was well-rested and I was eager to be engaged by the film, it is hard to say that this is an engaging film that is worthwhile of the attention of a wide audience. As an avid cinephile, I am embarrassed to say I fell asleep. As a reviewer, I need to mention I fell asleep three times to help people make a good decision about whether or not this film is truly going to be their cup of tea.

Raimunda is going through her routines of working cleaning jobs and spending time with her family and commitments in regard to her aunt and her aunt's friend, Agustina. When her Aunt Paula dies and Raimunda's daughter Paula kills her lecherous husband who is making attempting to rape Paula, Raimunda's life is turned upside down. While she works to keep Paco's body from being found and earn some money by working at an abandoned restaurant for a visiting film crew, Raimunda's sister, Sole, takes in the visiting ghost of their long-dead mother, Irene. While Sole and Irene bond and come to terms with the fallouts of their past, Raimunda works to protect Paula and reinvigorate her life.

As the title of the film suggests, Volver is frequently about cycles, about returns. While there are many intricate meanings of the word, the broadest definition is to return (to a place). Irene returns to her family, throughout the film, Raimunda returns to the river - which has special significance as she tells the story of Paco, her murdered husband -, to Aunt Paula's house, to the abandoned restaurant.

But far more important and germane to the film are the returns on emotions, returns to emotional places. Paula's interrupted assault at the hands to Paco continues a cycle of abuse in the women in Irene's family and in some ways the film fits together too snugly as a result. But more impressively, writer-director Pedro Almodovar works to create and reinforce many such cycles throughout the film. The cycles are not limited to returning to geographical places or familial cycles, but also expanded to have representations of life returning to things forgotten, like Raimunda singing for the first time before her daughter. Almodovar is also more subtle with the namings: Paula being both aunt and daughter creates a strong literary sense of cycles. In other words, it is hard to fault the writing of Volver with the film's problems. This movie has a strong sense of literary development to it and on that front it works rather well.

Moreover, the direction utilizes the script quite well. Volver looks good. As everything from the DVD cover and movie poster illustrates, this is a beautifully filmed movie with amazing color contrast and a richness that creates a more vibrant reality in many scenes than what actually exists in real life.

Unfortunately, once one understands the concept behind Volver, there are no surprises. This is an incredibly predictable film and Almodovar is easily the least subtle director I've witnessed in recent memory. So, for example, Paula - Raimunda's daughter - sits in a miniskirt and tights straddling a chair with her legs wide open and Paco notices. From the angle Paco is at on the couch, he finds himself looking straight at the girl's crotch and director Almodovar establishes a shot from Paco's perspective that clearly states exactly what he is seeing and it is not hard to understand - even with only moments of screentime preceding the shot - exactly what Paco's thoughts are. Not content with that obvious bit of showing, Almodovar includes a second shot that has Paco peeking in on Paula changing and for those not whacked over the head with Paco lusting after his daughter, him ogling her sideboob makes it undeniable.

This is not a subtle film and after being beaten over the head with showing the examples of Paco's lusty feelings for his daughter, the film rapidly degenerates into a series of long exposition scenes where the backstory of Raimunda, Sole, Irene and Agustina are simply told. Yes, perhaps part of the problem with Volver, whether one is listening to it in Spanish or reading the English subtitles, is that much of the movie becomes people sitting around telling stories that are similar to the current storyline. The return of circumstances that affect the protagonists is obvious and overdone. By the middle of the film, viewers are begging for a flashback where the story being told is shown rather than told and we'd accept even Almodovar's "whack you over the head" obvious style just to see something other than vibrantly colored people sitting around telling one another their histories.

Volver becomes plot-obsessed with characters filling in stories that all relate to the theme and title. The unresolved relationship between Raimunda and the grip who arranges for her to feed the film crew might work fine to add flavor and something of reality that is not necessarily directly related to the theme, save that there is also the unresolved aspect of the restaurant. What becomes of that seems more problematic when paired with another unresolved plotline. In a film that is so heavy on making its point and illustrating the concept it seeks to portray, it becomes problematic to have too many unresolved plot issues.

Sadly, the characters suffer outside the plot. All of the characterization of Raimunda and Irene is used to reinforce the plot and themes, especially as they relate to the title. The film is entirely lacking in character idiosyncrasies that do anything other than promote or expand upon the idea that there are cycles in families and individual lives.

As a result of the characterization for plot's sake, many of the actors are given less to do and turn in performances that are less inspired than one might hope. Yohana Cobo has quite a bit of time on screen as Paula, but her role relegates her quite frequently to wallflower, an accessory to Penelope Cruz's Raimunda. She is dragged along awkwardly delivering her few lines with little zest, passion or reality.

Even Penelope Cruz gives a performance that is nothing new or exciting. Cruz - in the few films I have seen her in - has a surprisingly passionless affect. Indeed, she emoted more vibrantly in the kitschy "Bandidas" than in Volver. Never one to defend blandness in performance, it is difficult to see what the fuss was about Cruz's portrayal in this particular movie.

The best moments on the acting front come from Lola Deunas. Duenas has a wide-eyed affect and a more subtle delivery to some of her lines that actually creates a layered character. Watching her on screen, there is some sense to her portrayal that there is more going on with her character than just what we see and that serves her and the film better than any of the other performances.

On DVD, Volver has a commentary track, interviews with Cruz, Almodovar and others, as well as theatrical trailers. This is not the most inspired collection of bonus features, but it is adequate for the drama and those who enjoy the film are likely to get more out of the extras. Unfortunately, that wasn't me, at least not as much as I wanted it to be.

Ultimately, I opt for a very soft "recommend" for Volver, but it is strictly a viewing recommendation. I do not see why one would want to purchase Volver and add it to their permanent collection. It is not of that caliber, but it might be worth the viewing, at least for the writing. Or as a sleep aid.

For other foreign films, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Road Home
Strawberry And Chocolate
Kama Sutra: A Tale Of Love


4.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Index Page!

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Pointless Visual Stylings Of Cameron Crowe: Vanilla Sky

The Good: Imagery, Moments of mystery, Jason Lee
The Bad: Lack of quality acting, Poorly established plot elements, Lack of empathetic characters
The Basics: When David Aames survives a car accident with a stalker-type, his life is thrown into chaos he - and the audience - cannot explain in Vanilla Sky.


I am told that Cameron Crowe is one of the cinematic genius' of our time, at least as far as the cinema is concerned. My only outing in his realm, so far, is Vanilla Sky and based on that I think his reputation is overblown. Terry Gilliam, P.T. Anderson and Kevin Smith effortlessly come to mind as better directors creating more meaningful and lasting films. If Vanilla Sky is Crowe's triumph, then his reputation is overblown; I shall suspend judgment on that until I experience at least one other film of his.

Vanilla Sky is the somewhat gnarled story of publishing executive David Aames. Aames appears to be on the top of the world, possessing what any man could want; he is a successful businessman with a blonde in his bed and money to throw around. Yet, it appears he was disfigured and as he awaits trial, he is interrogated by a psychologist. Dr. McCabe attempts to get to the root of the problem and through a series of narrated flashbacks, Aames reveals his story. Apparently, the blonde (Julie) that Aames appears emotionally involved with at the beginning is actually a stalker and Aames uses a chance meeting with Sofia to try to escape her. What follows is a confused accounting of how Sofia and Julie overlap in Aames' mind following an accident that Aames is in, disfiguring his face. The story becomes more confused by the questionable existence of Sofia, the uncertain memories of the status of Aames' face and the inexplicably erratic behavior of Aames' best friend, Brian. As Aames tumbles toward his trial, all of the elements come together and the truth is set before him.

The problem is that Vanilla Sky is presented poorly, where details are handed out as a matter of convenience. Imagine a murder mystery where it takes half the movie to reveal who was murdered, then another half hour to bother to reveal how it happened and then in the last five minutes, the murderer is simply identified. Vanilla Sky feels like that; it is a movie that does not allow the viewer to piece together all of the important imagery, instead withholding the essential elements until they are fully explained.

Without revealing the important "secret" of Vanilla Sky's ending, I will give an example. The character that ultimately gives Aames all of the answers he seeks, Edmund Ventura, is not introduced until the last half hour. He is seen once before then, but his significance is unknown at the time. Moreover, without having planted the advertisement that Aames ultimately uses to make the connections near the end, the audience is cheated of putting together the significance of Ventura's presence before his purpose is simply presented.

Vanilla Sky sets in front of the viewer various nightmare images without any sense of reason to them. The reason is simply given at the end, but the revelation comes with no sense of satisfaction because the viewer has stopped caring long before the end comes. Instead of the explanation being a catharsis where the viewer says, "Of course" or "Okay. Now it's all better," there is a sense of "eh. I suppose I could have seen it coming" or "So." The point being, any sense of being engaged with the protagonist is lost because the viewer simply experiences his delusions instead of having the ability to solve it with him. That is to say that we are trapped in Aames' limited sight instead of being able to be like Dr. McCabe and put it all together.

The lack of catharsis and caring is only suspended by a series of beautiful images. The vanilla sky in the film - an allusion to a Monet painting - radiates like nothing else, making the landscape the characters are in easily watchable. And Jason Lee does an excellent job, despite the fact that his character is poorly and erratically written. Lee handles it professionally, expressing the varied emotions he is forced to put out there.

Outside Lee, the acting is lacking in anything of value. Penelope Cruz continues to baffle me. Her celebrity is not supported by her performances in Woman On Top, Blow or this. Instead, she seems bland and generic, a form that fills the Hollywood ideal without having genuine substance or talent. Cameron Diaz, similarly, does little in Vanilla Sky besides bug out her eyes and attempt to be freaky. She lacks, however, the gravity to pull of a truly terrifying stalker-type and that is what the role of Julie seems to need. In short, she is just not intense enough to seem at all realistic.

Tom Cruise could be replaced by pretty much anyone as David Aames. I'm unsure what it was he was supposed to bring to this role. Aames is supposed to embody success and without knowing who Cruise is, the audience would miss out on that important aspect of the character. That is to say if one went into Vanilla Sky without knowing what a huge star Tom Cruise already was, the role of David Aames would be lacking any sense of the celebrity Aames is supposed to embody. Noah Taylor, who plays Ventura, has equal potential for the same connotations without the off-screen knowledge.

Whenever one has to step outside the actual work to put together all of the implications of the character, it becomes problematic. That's one of many problems with Vanilla Sky. In the end, the movie makes sense, but without the cheap exposition of the end, there is no way for the viewer to make the movie comprehensible on their own. Ultimately, Crowe fails to create an engaging movie and instead makes one that is, at best, beautiful. In this case, it is not enough.

For other films that bend reality, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Inception
Sucker Punch

5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Blow: The After School Special For The Gen X Drug Runners

The Good: Most acting, Relationship between father and son, Plot, Pacing, Directing
The Bad: Penelope Cruz, Last frames, Moments of tone
The Basics: A surprisingly good film about the man responsible for the U.S. drug trade in the 70's, Blow is an impressive acting exercise and character study of one man.


Sometimes two actors not only look and sound alike, but there are roles in which they also act alike. Having watched Blow, I was allowed to exercise a rather obscure fantasy of sorts: I allowed Johnny Depp to be Christopher Walken and I allowed myself to believe Ray Liotta was Jeffrey Hunter. Jeffrey Hunter, for the masses who would not know, played Captain Christopher Pike in the pilot for Star Trek. He's been dead for over thirty years; died before his time.

Blow, then is the story of drug distributor George Jung. Jung is apparently the man responsible for the influx of cocaine into the United States in the 1970s. As we watch, Fred Jung, George's father, and Ermine, George's mother, fretting about money. Ermine is the archetypal nag and Fred expresses the bulk of his love and idealism to his son. Fred leaves to the south where he ends up smuggling marijuana into the California and then Massachusetts. Arrested, Fred meets Diego, who gets him involved with smuggling cocaine. From there, it's pretty much the typical rise and fall story. Fred marries Mirtha, they have a baby, Fred makes $60 million dollars, Fred is betrayed, arrested, and loses everything.

What works is that whenever the film seems like it is about to slow down or hit a dead spot, the director changes the look, feeling, timing of the film. The moment the film hits a rough patch, often it actually stops and it changes direction. Right before Diego's wedding, for instance, it breaks into a photo montage. It works. Ted Demme impressed me with his direction. He seems to have an expert sense of timing and that is refreshing given a lot of films I've seen lately.

Even better than that is the character connection between Fred and George. Throughout the film the tether between father and son plays out well. Whenever George experiences a serious loss, a direction, his father is there. It's actually refreshing, if a bit idealistic. It serves to remind us of the concept of unconditional love. And how great is that? I think it's a nice idea and in Blow, it is executed with proficiency and grace.

Most of the acting impressed me. The actors are diverse and for the most part I was convinced. Johnny Depp and Ray Liotta are the obvious acting winners in the film. They become Fred and George and they play the relationship well. Unfortunately, Penelope Cruz didn't impress me as Mirtha. I have to say it was somewhat amusing to me that it took over an hour for the second billed star to even appear. But even the secondary characters are well acted. Paul Reubens and Ethan Suplee appear too briefly and quite well as Derek and Tuna.

I thought the last line almost blew the film. I had been impressed by the level of compassion and love Fred had for his daughter. That the last line, a graphic on the screen appeared saying how she has not visited her father in prison seemed like cheap emotional manipulation and it bothered me that the film stooped to that. Moreover, there were moments where the tone was "have sympathy for this drug dealer" and those moments seemed forced.

What worked were the moments where the idea instead was "have sympathy for this human." In fact, Fred is sympathetic for moments in the end. He is a human and this film does not minimize the fact that he experiences the full range of human emotion. He is not a flat villain, he's not some public relations attempt to make drug dealers look good or glamorous. He's a man. And sometimes, that alone is worth watching.

For other films featuring Johnny Depp, please visit my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The Tourist
Alice In Wonderland
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Corpse Bride
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
Dead Man
Edward Scissorhands

6.5/10

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

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Women Top Many Things, But Not Woman On Top!

The Good: Background actors do a good job
The Bad: Utter lack of character development, First billed actors aren't acting, Not funny
The Basics: A sad attempt at sexy and funny fails to be both instead being an insulting blend of idiotic men and women who believe fate controls them in Woman On Top.


It's supposed to be difficult for a feminist to pan a film that is pro-woman, pro-choice. I'd like to laugh at all of my fellow feminists who tout Woman On Top as a wonderful example of a feminist film. The truth is, they're full of it. Woman On Top is not a feminist film. It is not a film about the strength of a woman and the importance of her decisions; it's about how stupid men are and how most think with their genitals. The protagonist, Isabella Oliveira, does not make so many decisions revealing her inner strength as she waits for the men in her life to come to their senses and realize she's important and begin to cherish her. In fact, Woman On Top is not a feminist treatise, Penelope Cruz is not the latest feminist; this is another romantic comedy where casting was done on t,l, and a. The "l," in case you didn't guess, is "legs."

Woman On Top is a romantic comedy (I use both terms lightly) wherein Isabella Oliveira leaves Brazil and her cheating husband for San Francisco. There she finds her newly released transvestite friend, Monica, and she meets Cliff Lloyd. Cliff, in addition to being ridiculously attracted to her, gets her a job as a chef on television. So, Isabella becomes involved with a strange love triangle between herself, Cliff and Toninho, who follows her to San Francisco to declare his love.

The first thing is, they're all utterly passionless. There's no chemistry between Cliff and Isabella, even less between Isabella and her husband. Everything is oversimplified. Cliff follows Isabella as part of a mob of men who simply begin following her down the street her one of her first days in San Francisco. He's solely attracted to her body and the truth is, if you've watched more than ten american films in your life, you've seen it before. She's thin, leggy, busty enough, clear skin, you name it. It's the typical Hollywood look woman.

The men in the film, they're all idiots. In addition to being utterly dazzled by Isabella, the men are simple and driven by one thing. It's pathetic. I demand better in my characters. Cliff goes from being so dazzled by Isabella to being more focused on his career, which doesn't read right considering one of his first lines is that he hates his life and work. The only male that has a good, consistent character is Alex, played by John de Lancie. He's consistent as a television exec always out to do what will make the show float.

The only woman that gives a decent performance is Anne Ramsay as the show's director. If you've never seen her name come up in association with this film here's why: she's a bit role. She's not focused on at all. That's how far down the ladder I had to go for a good female character. The only other performance of note is Harold Perrineau Jr. as Monica. He's convincing and funny as Monica.

Woman On Top suffers as most romantic comedies do from predictability. Add to that an element of superstition that completely destroys the idea of women empowering themselves, a series of bad performances and a complete lack of character development and you have an equation for a film not worth seeing.

For other movies starring Penelope Cruz, check out my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
G-Force
All The Pretty Horses

1.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

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

| | |

There Are Worse Films, But Few Come Right To Mind Now: All The Pretty Horses

The Good: Cinematography, Score (I suppose)
The Bad: Horrible story, Lousy characters, Pointless direction, Misuse of talent
The Basics: All The Pretty Horses is a cinematic treat creates visual eye candy but nothing else. Not a thing. Honest.


I just sat through All The Pretty Horses. I watched it, I tried to get into it, but the bottomline is I sat through the production.

All The Pretty Horses follows John Grady Cole (who, in typical South/Southwestern fashion - at least in the media - insists on introducing himself all the time by all three names) from Texas where his mother is selling the family ranch to Mexico. He is accompanied by Lacey Rawlins, though his motives for travel are far less clear other than that they are "buddies." That simplistic logic gets old quite quickly, as is made painfully obvious only a few minutes into the film when they pick up Jimmy Blevins and decide to allow him to accompany them because he's an American. I fail to believe that even in the 40s such logic held up. So, the trio goes into Mexico and Blevins gets separated from Cole and Rawlins and the pair gets hired to break horses at Hector de la Rocha's ranch.

It becomes quite clear early in the viewing experience that if you're not into horses or the Southwest, this film isn't going to be for you. It's not quite a Western (genre), but it's not much more, either. The film is heavy on horse themes, trainer dialect and such. What works is the cinematography. The film is amazingly shot and there is much to look at that is quite nice.

The problem is, a lot of the visual images are pointless and baffling. The camera will suddenly pan to something that seems to have no connection with the current action, no point.

The true fault of the film is that it tries to do too much and ends up doing none of them particularly well. The reason most films focus on one theme is because 1 1/2 - 2 1/2 hours is a good length to actually explore an issue. All The Pretty Horses tries to take on too much, i.e. lack of civil rights in law enforcement in Mexico, the effect of prison, and word of honor vs. passion of the heart. Most of the themes end up being underdeveloped and they feel that way.

The characters are largely simplistic. Cole is somewhat developed, but it's difficult to care about him because he is such an obvious paradigm for "good, simple, hardworking folk" being set against a stern culture and such obvious evils as the Strongarmed Captain. Alejandra, Cole's love interest for whom he sacrifices much, is a pretty face with a word of honor and little else. Her character lacks soul. Rawlins is similarly ill-defined and flat.

The greatest crime is that the talent that does exist isn't used. The wonderful Ruben Blades appears far too briefly and is never returned to. Lucas Black plays Blevins wonderfully and, in fact, had the film stuck with Blevins instead of progressed into a pointless love story with Cole, the film might have been enjoyable. Penelope Cruz is in yet another film for her body which is supposed to be desirable, but comes across as obvious. There's something disturbing about watching emaciated women on screen under the pretense that they are sexy. Sigh. Matt Damon is fine as Cole, but adds little to the character.

The reason I'm giving this 2 1/2 is that the film was not completely obvious. While Cole seeks - and receives - redemption in the States from a judge, the romantic plot does not go in the usual, obvious direction. And there was a portion of the film I believed Rawlins had been killed. Looking at the IMDB, director Billy Bob Thorton was apparently quoted on Oprah saying if the film only touched 10 people, it was worth making. I'm not one of those ten and I seriously doubt that he made his personal quota.

For other films featuring Matt Damon, please check out my reviews of:
The Adjustment Bureau
The Departed
The Rainmaker
Rounders

2.5/10

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

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

More Surprising Than Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Being Made Is How Mundane It Is!

The Good: The film starts well and ends all right, Generally the acting
The Bad: No real character development, 3-D effects do not add anything, Ian McShane is underused, Movie lags.
The Basics: Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a strangely slow-moving series of monotonous sequences that barely add up to a typical summer action-adventure film.


When I first heard about a film being made based upon a ride at Disney World, I was skeptical. The ride was Pirates Of The Caribbean and the film did not knock me out. So, when I heard that there was going to be a fourth Pirates Of The Caribbean film, it was hard for me to muster up the effort to care. Having now seen Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, it is hard for me to muster up the enthusiasm to write much about it, so this is likely to be one of my shorter film reviews.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides reinvigorates the franchise without the two characters that couldn't reasonably appear given how the last film ended. So, where in the Pirates timeline this occurs is a bit murky, though it is after the first trilogy. My main complaint with Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is that it is nothing viewers have not seen before. Moreover, it doesn't feel like much in the way of an organic movie. For sure, it looks fine (though the 3-D effects do not add very much to the movie, so shelling out for the 3-D version is not recommended), but rather than being a cohesive film it feels more like a series of frenetic events loosely connected by scenes where I didn't grow to care more about the characters. So, there's a chase followed by a swordfight followed by a mutiny leading to a battle at sea and then a climactic battle with little else in between. And after two hours, I didn't care a bit.

Gibbs, the first officer of Jack Sparrow's ship, the Black Pearl, is brought to trial in London where he is acquitted by Jack Sparrow himself, who is impersonating a judge. After a chase to elude the British soldiers and King George himself, Sparrow goes in search of a doppelganger using his name to recruit a crew for his new ship. Having lost the Black Pearl, Sparrow becomes interested in the impostor and fights with his double until he discovers that it is Angelica impersonating him. A former romantic interest, Angelica is searching for the Fountain Of Youth, which Sparrow recently had a map to. Dragooned by Angelica, Sparrow finds himself aboard the Queen Anne's Revenge working for the mysterious pirate Blackbeard.

While Barbossa, who now has only one leg, hunts for Sparrow, the Fountain and the two components needed to make the Fountain's water worthwhile (two chalices in the possession of the corpse of Ponce de Leon and a mermaid's tear), Sparrow leads a mutiny on Blackbeard's ship. Fighting officers who are mindless voodoo zombies for Blackbeard, Sparrow haplessly finds himself involved in rescuing a missionary, capturing a mermaid, and leading the Spanish (and English) to the fabled Fountain Of Youth.

Honestly, there's not much more to recount than the plot here. The rest of Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is nothing new at all. Sparrow does not grow, change or evolve in the course of the film. Similarly, Johnny Depp seems more subdued in the role of Sparrow, as if he is getting sick of playing slightly crazy or crazed. The result is that he slouches through the role and doesn't land the character with the sense of panache that made him so popular to begin with.

Add to that, the supporting cast is woefully misused or underused. Geoffrey Rush returns as Barbossa and his character is out for revenge. Having lost the Black Pearl and his leg to Blackbeard, Barbossa seems like he ought to be more angry than Rush plays him and this is an unfortunate twist for an actor who has such presence to him usually.

The same can be said for Ian McShane as Blackbeard. For sure, McShane has an amazing pirate look and he sells the appearance of Blackbeard. But his gravitas is entirely underused in the role. He kills coldly and he threatens members of the crew and his own daughter, but when he does it comes across as more mundane than terrifying or evil. That's not to say Blackbeard isn't evil; he is. But it is more his acts than the way McShane acts as him that sells him as evil in this film.

I've not been a fan of Penelope Cruz and her performance as Angelica in Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides did not turn me around on her.

As for the special effects, Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is adequate, but in no way extraordinary. Two of the major battles are cheated by being in darkness, so the effects department gets away with making some of the battles ridiculously simple and just keeping them moving fast to seem in any way extraordinary. But things like the arrival of the Queen Anne's Revenge in Whitecap Bay reminded me of The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader (reviewed here!).

Ultimately, this is pretty mindless summer fare and with over two hours of runtime, it feels long. In contrast, I saw this as a double feature with X-Men: First Class (reviewed here!) and while they are about the same duration, this felt about three times as long. I wouldn't even bother catching this for free on television.

For other Pirates Of The Caribbean films, please check out my reviews of:
The Curse Of The Black Pearl
Dead Man's Chest
At World's End

3.5/10

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.5/10

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

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



| | |