R.I.P. Carrie Fisher: Postcards From The Edge Had So Much Potential!

The Good: Good performances, Some wonderful lines (both funny and dramatic), Good direction
The Bad: Glosses over much of the complexity of recovery and narcissism
The Basics: The moments of insight and wit make Postcards From The Edge a worthwhile film to watch, even if it is not nearly as complex in its resolution as the set-up indicates it might be.


When news broke that actress Carrie Fisher had suffered a heart attack on December 23, my heart sunk. 2016 has been a brutal year for deaths of beloved celebrities, writers, musical artists, and actors and while I joined my voice to wish for the best for Carrie Fisher and her speedy recovery, I had no reason to believe that 2016 would alter its momentum and Fisher would recover from her good health. So, when I awoke yesterday to the news that Fisher had died, I was very sad, but not surprised. The days between the two major news stories gave me time to consider what I would write as a tribute to Carrie Fisher.

Like most people, my first and enduring encounter with Carrie Fisher came from her iconic portrayal of the strong-willed Princess Leia Organa in the Star Wars Saga (reviewed here!). Fisher also delivers brilliantly the lines that help create my favorite moment in When Harry Met Sally . . . (reviewed here!) and that got me thinking about how much I came to enjoy watching interviews with Fisher over the years for her candid nature and wry wit. So, when Fisher was hospitalized, it occurred to me that the greatest tribute to Carrie Fisher I could provide would be in reviewing something new (to me) that illustrated Fisher's humor, honesty, and creative skill. For that, I decided it was time to watch Postcards From The Edge.

Postcards From The Edge was released cinematically when I was a teenager, shortly after I had discovered and become obsessed with Star Trek and was fully immersed in that culture. Ironically, a film that addressed in a straightforward manner mental illness probably would have served me better at that time in my life, but Carrie Fisher's cinematic adaptation of her own novel on the subject of substance abuse and living in the shadow of parental pressures is worthwhile and smart. This review is of Postcards From The Edge, which Fisher loosely based upon some of her own life experiences; while some might belabor making the connections between the art and the reality, I am opting for a pure review of the film as it stands on its own.

Actress Suzanne Vale is working on the set of a film, where she is having a rough time of getting through her lines because she is high and the director she is working with tries to avoid cuts in his shots. Shortly thereafter, Vale is unresponsive in bed with Jack Faulkner, who rushes her to the hospital. After her stomach is pumped and she regains consciousness, Vale has to confront her drug abuse. Her celebrity mother comes to visit her in rehab, whose narcissistic tendencies make it difficult for Suzanne to confront her issues. Coming out of rehab, Vale discovers that it is hard for her to get work again because of her history with drugs.

Vale is given the chance to act again if she stays with "a responsible party" during the shoot. Drug tested on the set, Vale is forced to live under her mother's roof where she is subjected to her mother's expectations and pressures. Doris (Vale's mother), puts Suzanne on display and pressures her to perform publicly at a party she throws for her daughter and it becomes clear that Doris is trying to remain relevant and active through Suzanne. Returning to the set the next day, Vale gets a lot of notes on her performance and overhears people talking about her physique, which make it tough for her to give a good performance. After her second day of work, she runs into Faulkner, who starts to pursue her. When Faulkner visits Vale's home, Doris hits on him, but Vale willingly gets into a relationship with him. But, when she learns that Faulkner is sleeping around and she tires of her mother's drinking around her, Vale begins to fight for her own identity and stand up for her own hopes and dreams.

Postcards From The Edge is tough to discuss without some references to Carrie Fisher because Meryl Streep's portrayal of Suzanne Vale so perfectly captures some of the cadences of Carrie Fisher as to make it painfully obvious that the character, or Streep's performance, is based upon her. Streep adapts a speech pattern virtually identical to Carrie Fisher's in many of Vale's most potent deliveries of irony and exasperation. Streep makes Vale accessible and interesting, even as viewers become more and more frustrated with the environment she is in and the people who surround her.

When Vale starts to realize that Doris is her "x-factor" that brings her the stress that begins to make her tempted to use drugs and alcohol, Streep is able to break out and make Vale seem vital in a way that the first half of the movie does not. When Vale asserts herself, Postcards From The Edge starts to take on a richness and level of intrigue that turns the uncomfortable comedy into a potent drama. Streep succeeds more as Vale when she can be heard - there are a number of scenes where she and Shirley MacLaine talk over one another - and Postcards From The Edge works best when it is focused on her.

It is not long into Postcards From The Edge that it becomes obvious that Suzanne Vale is struggling under the yolk of pressure and expectations from her narcissistic mother, Doris. Doris hijacks the party thrown in Suzanne's honor and flirts with Faulkner in a troubling way. Postcards From The Edge does an excellent job of creating a narcissistic character in the form of Doris Mann, but glosses over the complexity of confronting and surviving toxic people in order to deliver a "feel good" ending.

Postcards From The Edge does a rare thing in confronting familial alcoholism and substance abuse and creates a vivid portrait of a horrible narcissist . . . but to get the film into a hundred minute run time and be easily classifiable, the movie creates a situation that is complex and realistic, but then resolves it remarkably simplistically. That makes Postcards From The Edge a bit less satisfying than it ought to be, especially given how good all of the performances are and how decent the characters are when they are allowed to breathe and develop.

Perhaps that is the most fitting epitaph for Carrie Fisher, who railed against having to look a specific way in order to appear in the newest Star Wars films; she worked in an industry that values style over substance and Fisher had a mind for complexity and realism where consumers buy into flash and simplicity. The sad truth is that Carrie Fisher might well have been better as a writer and human being than she was ever allowed to be as a performer and she (and her audience) deserved better.

For other 2016 tribute reviews, please check out my reviews of:
Blackstar - David Bowie
Mother's Day - Garry Marshall
Strangers - Merle Haggard
Firefly Soundtrack - Ron Glass

6/10

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

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

The Subtle Perfection Of A Romantic Comedy Done Right: When Harry Met Sally. . .

The Good: Acting, Romance, Characters, Humor holds up over many viewings, Assembly, Direction
The Bad: Somewhat obvious set up (I'm stretching here!), None in truth
The Basics: Who are you and why haven't you seen this classic, perfect romantic comedy yet?! Funny, charming and well-developed, When Harry Met Sally. . . is a winner.


Romantic comedies tend to suffer in my reviews because the average romantic comedy is predictable beyond belief and when you've seen it once, you've seen it a hundred times. In short, because most romantic comedies are about the establishment of a romantic relationship and usually who the characters will end up with is pretty much a function of casting (i.e. usually the two top-billed performers are the ones who hook up), there's little surprise to most romantic comedies. The way the most successful romantic comedies get around that is by creating unique and interesting characters, like in Love Actually (reviewed here!) and/or playing with the notion of a romantic comedy exploding the limitations of the genre, like The Incredibly True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love (reviewed here!). One of the few romantic comedies that does this perfectly is When Harry Met Sally. . .

Harry Burns meets Sally Albright when they split driving responsibilities on a twelve hour drive to New York where they are starting their post college lives. Harry annoys Sally almost the entire way. Their trip concludes with Sally wishing they could be friends but Harry declaring that men and women cannot just be friends and they part way. Years later, Sally and Harry run into one another on a flight and Harry amends his prior comment; women and men can be friends if both are in relationships, so they can now be friends. Harry's wife soon leaves him, however, and Sally's relationship falls apart, too. They spend years becoming better and better friends while their mutual friends Marie and Jess fall in love and marry. As their friendship grows, they move toward an inevitable romantic relationship, but - of course - there are complications . . .

What makes When Harry Met Sally. . . work so well is that it follows an excruciatingly realistic pace. While so many romantic comedies rush into sex, relationship and forced conflict, this is a film that explores the conflict of various relationships and delays the romance for a long time. Featuring interstitials of couples telling how they fell in love between the various time jumps, When Harry Met Sally. . . takes the time to develop an actual friendship between the protagonists that makes their relationship viable, interesting and an intriguing basis for love. In short, by the time Harry and Sally start actually moving toward a relationship, they feel like they are already in a meaningful one.

It works extraordinarily well and this is one of the films that succeeds admirably because the lead actors have genuine chemistry. The characters spend much of the movie looking in every direction but each other and that makes for an interesting character study. Both are well defined and as they share common interests, like watching "Casablanca" together in their respective apartments by having each other on the line while viewing it, the viewer enjoys watching them bond.

These are two characters genuinely relating and that's something that we rarely see in films these days. Too often the chemistry between characters or actors is assumed. Far too often the characters in a romantic comedy follow the three date, have sex, be in a relationship formula - though lately, there is a tendency toward characters to "slip" and have sex on the first date and that provides much of what is supposed to be the comedy. Sigh. When Harry Met Sally. . . is still something different in that regard. Harry and Sally are around one another for years before romance even enters into their dialogue.

In some ways, this is also one of the last successful "odd couple" type pairings. Sally has underwear for each day of the week and a laundry list of dietary concerns. Harry is generally slovenly (I still laugh every time he starts spitting grape seeds out of the car while the window is still up). Harry is quirky and opens Sally up to absurdity like spending a day speaking in an accent while wandering a museum, Sally brings a sense of calm and care to Harry's life and opens him up to a broader life philosophy.

The relationship between Harry and Sally is mirrored by the much quicker, but no less solid, relationship between Marie and Jess. They are funny and watching their foibles realistically delays Sally and Harry from rushing their relationship. Moreover, it keeps the pace of the movie bearable. As Harry and Sally struggle for years to relate and befriend one another and move past their difficulties of past relationships, Marie and Jess offer a very satisfying pair to sink some of our hopes into. We accept the delay of the protagonists because the world they live in is still filled with less tenuous love and that makes the movie work.

As well, there's a wonderful moment when Jess and Marie turn to one another and say "Promise me I'll never be single again!" that is just beautiful. Jess is played by Bruno Kirby and it's refreshing to see such a realistic-looking adult get such a decent role. I'm not staying that Kirby stands out as the luckiest character actor in a long time to be married off (in the movie) to Carrie Fisher, but it's nice to see people who don't have the same homogenous "desperate to look young and sexy" look in movies. Carrie Fisher gives a memorable performance as Marie and it's nice to see her in a role that is so different from the nagging Princess Leia that made her career. Here she is mature, articulate, emotionally connected and a delight to watch.

Much of the movie hinges on Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan as Harry and Sally. Ryan's performance in this movie made her the darling of romantic comedies for almost a decade and it's easy to see why. In When Harry Met Sally. . ., Ryan is cute, articulate and her neurosis is fun to watch for most viewers. She plays the role with a simple, "good American girl" quality that she effortlessly portrays and does so well.

Ryan has surprisingly good on-screen chemistry with costar Billy Crystal. Crystal plays the oddball well and here he keeps it in check enough to create a genuine and memorable character. He slouches through the role and everything that comes out of his mouth, no matter how contrary to our personal experience he presents as perfectly credible, such is the strength of his performance. Even if the viewer does not believe what he is saying, we believe Harry believes his own philosophies. That's great acting on Crystal's part.

When Harry Met Sally. . . was written by Nora Ephron and she shows an excellent balance in her characterizations. Neither of the characters feels like they were written in a way that is inorganic (ever watched a movie where a male character says something and it pulls you out of the movie and you say "That line was written by a woman?" There's nothing like that in this script!). Director Rob Reiner does an excellent job keeping the movie flowing whenever it seems like it could fall into a slow point.

At the end of the day, this is a perfect romantic comedy and well worth the time and attention of all audiences. It shows an adult story of two people falling in love over a long period of time that does not feel so long. Told with humor that holds up over multiple viewings and great characters, When Harry Met Sally. . . is a must-see!

For other romantic comedies, please visit my reviews of:
Chasing Amy
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Valentine’s Day

10/10

For other movie 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.
| | |

The American President: The American Intellectual, Sorkin Hits The Big Time!

The Good: Intelligent dialogue, Interesting characters, Romantic, Quality acting
The Bad: Standard plot, Light on DVD extras
The Basics: A fun romantic comedy that is intelligently written and wonderfully acted and foreshadows more greatness to come from writer Aaron Sorkin, The American President is still worth seeing!


Aaron Sorkin, the literary brains behind the brilliant Sports Night (reviewed here!) and the television blockbuster The West Wing (reviewed here!), started off with plays and films and this is one of his. When I first saw the movie, I enjoyed it so much I watched it a second time immediately. Seriously. I can count on one hand the number of times that I have seen a movie and sat and rewatched it right away.

President Andrew Shepherd is finding life as President less than stellar when a political rival begins to publicly attack his policies as a ramp up to election season and his own bid for the presidency. As Shepherd tries to ignore Senator Rumsom's sabre-rattling, he marshals his staff to try to pass a gun control bill which he watches steadily get gutted of all meaning. At the same time, the environmental lobby puts pressure on Shepherd to pass a strong environmental bill.

The environmentalists hire Sydney Ellen Wade, one of the best lobbyists in the business and she begins to work her magic of drumming up support for the bill. Wade and Shepherd collide and the president finds himself instantly attracted to her. As the two begin a relationship, Sydney's past, Shepherd's widowerhood and the ambitions of Rumsom all begin to get tremendous media attention. When Shepherd's chief of staff sees an opportunity to get the gun bill passed while burying the environmental one, a conflict is set off between the new lovers that threatens both of their careers and their agendas.

The plot is fairly simple: Michael Douglas plays the widowered president of the United States who falls in love with an environmental lobbyist. In the course of their courting, political adversaries fight the president and personal rivals attack Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening) and their budding relationship is threatened. Pull out the social roles and it's just about every other romantic comedy ever written. The plot is not at all original. Indeed, the plot is terribly formulaic and director Rob Reiner seems to know that. He directs The American President with a very safe look, such that it appears as virtually every other romantic comedy does.

But that is where the conventionalism of The American President ends and it comes back to the genius that is Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin has an amazing knack for dialogue and characters. Sorkin's Shepherd, Wade, and staff members Lewis, Robin, and Leon all speak like we wish our American politicians and public servants would speak. They use a level of diction that makes them seem like they know what they are doing. They sound convincing and they take principled stands. But the level of dialogue, the sheer volume of words spoken in this film so truly captures the reality of human interaction and conversation like too few films do.

And the thing is, Sorkin does not shrink away from this. He even acknowledges it. One of the funniest moments in the film involves Shepherd watching Rumsom on television doing a campaign speech and critiquing his closing line. It's great and it acknowledges for the audience that Sorkin understands he is creating an ideal world that fills the viewer with some sense of hope and yet roots it with a realism that is just on the recognizable side of fantasy.

The characters are niche characters that manage to overcome their niches. So, for example, First Daughter Lucy acts like the docile daughter who has lost her mother, but also is able to confront her father in a way that is realistic and not bratty. The few scenes she is in humanize Shepherd like none of the rest of the scenes do. Similarly, Lewis Rothschild could easily be seen as the generic young upstart as one of the President's aides. But when one would expect him to be motivated solely by personal ambition, he takes an ethical stand and works with the president rather than to usurp him.

And Shepherd and Wade are not the typical romantic comedy lover characters. For sure, their jobs define much of what makes them different and unique, but Wade's past and her sense of ethics makes for a compelling character. Similarly, Shepherd's refusal to mudsling, even in the face of Rumsom's attacks, makes him a truly compelling character that is unlike most politicians we see on screen. He has a very Capra-esque quality to him.

And Wade and Shepherd make for an intriguing couple that works. Their romance may be somewhat predictable, but the characters work well with one another and there is a very real sense of chemistry between them. It helps that Shepherd is quite presidential and Wade is quite self-motivated, making for two strong, opinionated characters to come together, which usually works quite well for a story.

Shepherd is played by Michael Douglas and for an actor who seems to be relegated to many roles with action and adventure subtexts, he pulls off being presidential in this with amazing quality and consistency. Douglas is nothing like, say, his performance in The Game (reviewed here!). He is rational, dignified and always in control. Even while Shepherd's poll numbers slip, Douglas maintains a strong backbone and the sense that he is ready to accomplish anything. He infuses the character with a true sense of fighting spirit, despite the almost complete departure from anything resembling a physical role in this part.

Similarly, Annette Bening gives another phenomenal performance as Sydney Ellen Wade. A tremendous departure from her neurotic, stressed out role in American Beauty (reviewed here!), Bening is articulate, collected and surprisingly normal as Wade. Indeed, the strength of her performance is that she takes the character who - on the page - could be fiery and overshadow the leader of the free world and instead tempers her performance with a very realistic quality of deference. Bening's strength is illustrated in her scenes where she plays Wade as a tough lobbyist and her humanity is illustrated by the way she softens - especially her facial expressions - when Wade and Shepherd begin their courting. Bening makes much of the film seem realistic as a conduit into the unreal world of Capitol Hill politics!

But more than that, the supporting actors are wonderful. The American President has a tremendous supporting cast which includes Martin Sheen, Richard Dreyfuss and Michael J. Fox. The actors are astounding and believable. They were perfectly cast and the film is just packed with talent.

They come together under the writing of Aaron Sorkin who has a ridiculously amazing control of the American English language. He knows how intelligent people speak and he creates a situation filled with intellectuals speaking fast and smart to each other. A fair number of the lines are packed with double meaning or deeper meanings or understandings. And the film holds up well over multiple viewings, even when you watch it one time right after another.

On DVD the film suffers from a lack of genuine bonus features. Sure, there's the trailer and a few production notes, but there are no commentaries, no featurettes, no flair. This is a film that deserves a better DVD treatment.

But this is an occasion where the strength of the material makes it easy to recommend, despite the limitations of the media it is presented in.

For other works with David Paymer, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Bad Teacher
In Good Company
Bounce
State And Main
Payback

9/10

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

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

Graduating Into Something Mediocre: Rumor Has It . . .

The Good: A few lines near the very end
The Bad: Unextraordinary acting, Flat characters, Formulaic plot
The Basics: In a disappointing romantic comedy, Jennifer Aniston's character Sarah learns she may be the lovechild of the guy from The Graduate. Sigh.


When Harry Met Sally and Love Actually (reviewed here!) are two romantic comedies that are traditionally well-reviewed that I love. They are in my permanent collection, I watch them periodically, I enjoy them quite a bit. I mention them because lately I've seen a lot of romantic comedies or dramadies that border on romantic comedy that have been disappointing, vacuous or unsurprising and unfulfilling. I give every film, c.d. and book I encounter a fair, open-minded chance, but lately, I've been running into a lot of duds. The latest in that series is Rumor Has It . . .

Thirty years after the affair that inspired The Graduate, Sarah Huttinger is going through something of an existential crisis. While at her sister's wedding, while covering up her own engagement, Sarah learns that her grandmother, Katharine, is the woman who Mrs. Robinson was based upon and that the man who she seduced also seduced Sarah's mother. This causes Sarah to believe it is possible that Beau Burroughs might be her biological father, so she hunts him down.

Romantic comedies often hinge on chemistry. Chemistry is key to convincing an audience within ninety to 180 minutes that two people who are just coming together could be romantically involved. Hollywood creates for the audience and society the myth that relationships are not complex and can be condensed into an experience that is encapsulated within a ridiculously short period of time. Even given that common conceit, too many movies fail to engage the viewer simply based on lack of chemistry.

Rumor Has It . . . is plagued by a lack of chemistry all around. There is no palatable chemistry between Sarah and her fiancé Jeff. When we meet Beau, he is not terrible charismatic. Beau and Sarah have no discernible chemistry. And, though it was probably intended, Annie (Sarah's sister) and Scott have no chemistry either. It's pretty much impossible to sell a romantic comedy when none of the characters/actors have chemistry with one another.

I'm going to start the blame here with the actors. Mark Ruffalo plays Jeff and from his first appearance on-screen, my thought returned to the age-old problem of directors casting the Hollywood Beautiful d'jour actor of middling talent. Ruffalo fits this mold and it's unclear what his appeal is. This is the first movie I've seen Ruffalo in and he did not spark any desire to see him in any other roles. His delivery is bland, his affect is dull and he has no on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Aniston.

Conversely, Ruffalo is given the best line of the entire movie, though it comes far too late (almost at the very end) for the viewer to care and be impressed by his character for it. Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about Ruffalo's delivery, so the credit for the line has to go squarely to writer Ted Griffin.

Kevin Costner plays Beau and his performance calls to mind a gag from Family Guy. Chris, the dim son on the show, states, "I haven't been so confused since the ending of No Way Out!" and the shot immediately changes to him walking out of the movie wondering, "How does Kevin Costner keep getting work?" Yes, Rumor Has It . . . brings that question to mind as Costner is neither charismatic or even interesting as a character that pretty much demands being both. His performance feels surprisingly woody and Costner does not add anything to the role to sell the character.

Jennifer Aniston plays Sarah and it does not work for her. She proved to me her acting talents in Friends With Money, which might have been mood-terrible, but she was great. Aniston plays a character too much like her strong but occasionally befuddled Friends character Rachel. She exhibits no chemistry with either Costner or Ruffalo, which pretty much sinks the story.

Director Rob Reiner gets a lot of credit from me. He directed both When Harry Met Sally and the fabulous The American President. He is a man with some real talent and he has proven it time and time again. Rumor Has It . . . is not his best work. He doesn't bring out anything in the cast, does not make the story pop in a visually interesting way nor does he manage to sell us on any of the leads as being talented individuals.

Ultimately, Rumor Has It . . . just does not pop from the writing to the acting to the directing. It is not engaging and the events that are supposed to lead to a cathartic end fail to because the supposed catharsis is based on the concept that two of the characters are good together. Alas, we will hold out for better.

For other works with Mark Ruffalo, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Avengers
Date Night
Shutter Island
The Kids Are All Right
Where The Wild Things Are
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

3.5/10

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

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

A Quick Fairy Tale Of Worth: The Princess Bride!

The Good: Funny, Entertaining for all ages, Acting
The Bad: Plot is simple, Characters are all "types"
The Basics: With a great blend of humor and inventive dialog, The Princess Bride takes the tired old fairy tale formula and makes it new again.


The real magic of The Princess Bride is that it plays remarkably well for people of all ages with a fair amount of entertainment all the way around. This is a comedy that could be classified as "family entertainment" that actually succeeds in entertaining the entire family. It is funny, cute and well-told, despite the simplicity of the story.

The Princess Bride opens as a fair tale being told to a sick child by his grandfather. The tale is the typical fairy tale with an intriguing twist; none of the characters talk like they usually would in a fairy tale. So, Westley, a farm boy for Buttercup, spends his time being abused by her until she realizes that he loves her and she loves him. Far too poor to be married, Westley sets out to better himself and thus win her hand. Unfortunately, he is killed by the Dread Pirate Robert and five years later, she finds herself engaged to the nefarious Prince Humperdink. Humperdink is a war monger who wants to have Buttercup killed by what appears to be a neighboring kingdom so he has an excuse to bring his people to war there. Humperdink employs the ridiculous Vizzini and his henchmen Inigo Montoya and Fezzik. The trio of kidnapers runs into trouble when they are followed by a mysterious man in black who seems bent on recovering Buttercup and foiling their plans. The man in black turns out to be Westley and his resurfacing reignights the love he had with Buttercup in a weird race to save her life and his own and stop Humperdink's horrible plans.

Basically, this is a fair tale; man and woman fall in love, encounter obstacles and must overcome them to prove their love. There is revenge in the form of Inigo Montoya versus his mysterious six-fingered man, there is love in the form of Westley and Buttercup and there is scheming in the form of Prince Humperdink. But at the end of the day, the only thing that significantly distinguishes The Princess Bride from any other fairy tale is the dialog. The way the characters speak makes the movie a treat to watch and rewatch. For example, in most fair tales when two swordsmen square off, they hurl insults or barbs, when Westley and Inigo find themselves facing each other with foils, they spend the battle complimenting the swordsmanship of the other. Fezzik, the giant, discusses strategy while being suffocated by Westley when Westley, reluctantly must fight him. Outside his desire for making the fight as sportsmanlike as possible, Fezzik is basically a "type;" the adversary turned friend or simply, a Giant.

So while the characters are eccentric, they are essentially types: Westley a hero, Humperdink a villain, Inigo a hero seeking revenge, Count Rugen the object of Inigo's revenge who is mostly a coward, and Buttercup a would-be princess.

Why watch the movie? The dialog is truly great and funny and it stands up over multiple viewings. The acting is quite good. Seeing Mandy Patinkin on Dead Like Me and watching him as Inigo Montoya is a wonderful show of how much range he has as a great actor. Wallace Shawn - a favorite of mine - gives an incredibly ridiculous over-the-top performance as Vizzini and he steals every scene he is in.

Cary Elwes as Westley is phenomenal, escaping the bland roles he has often been condemned to since. Elwes is charismatic and has a great sense of timing in The Princess Bride. Similarly, Robin Wright performs well given the material she is given. Even Andre the Giant shines as Fezzik, bringing a strange lovable quality to the character.

It is Chris Sarandon who shines consistently in The Princess Bride. Sarandon does a great job of portraying a maniacal villain in Humperdink without ever appearing absurd. He uses a sense of timing and bearing to wonderfully convince the viewer that he could have risen to his position and station. He is quite the professional here.

Anyone will enjoy this movie and it is a worth addition to any DVD collection.

For other fantasy films, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Labyrinth
Breaking Dawn, Part 1
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy

7.5/10

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

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

An Hour And A Half Of Bruce And Michelle Yelling Is All The Story Of Us Is.

The Good: Moments of humor, Capable acting, Narrative technique, Moments of writing, Eric Clapton's music
The Bad: Near-constant yelling, Characters, Resolution, Advertising
The Basics: A fair attempt to show how relationships disintegrate over time with children and age, The Story Of Us flops in its loud, angry and ultimately un-entertaining execution.


The Story Of Us is an inconsistent film, perhaps that's the point of it, perhaps that's why opinions on it are so polarized. I think it's appropriate that the overall rating for this film, after 180+ reviews, is three stars. It has a "like it or hate it" feel to it. Right off the bat, it's getting more points from me solely because I laughed at it more than I laughed during Meet the Parents; I couldn't bear giving it the same low rating as that film.

The Story Of Us is about Katie and Ben Jordan, married for fifteen years, two children. In their fifteenth year of marriage, they find themselves fighting more often, sexually and emotionally distant and basically spending the summer while the children are away separated. In the process, they reminisce and progress. While they go on, Ben moves out, the kids remain ignorant of their difficulties, Katie takes a cooking class and life progresses.

In the process, there is much yelling.

There's a LOT of yelling. Ben and Katie yell, scream, holler and roar at one another. They're loud. I swear, they must have shot the final scene first because I can't imagine with all of the screaming, they wouldn't be completely hoarse by the end of the film. The problem is, it's annoying. We GET that the characters are frustrated. We understand that. But it seems the vast majority of the film is the two main characters screaming at each other. While this might appeal to older people going through this sort of thing (or not), it definitely doesn't appeal to younger people, especially those who went through it in their own childhoods. That's why this film won't endure; the younger generation lived listening to their parents openly fight like Ben and Katie do. Why watch a film of it?

The only respite comes in the restaurant. Scenes are interspersed with Ben and Katie at a restaurant with friends. Here, the film's writers try to make broader statements about men and women. For the most part, they are good. They show insight, they're funny. In these scenes, Rob Reiner, Rita Wilson and (the uncredited) Paul Reiser shine. Reiser is a scene stealer in each of his scenes, Reiner is funny and his lines are perfectly executed. It seems Wilson got the job of making all of the broad statements on females. She's good.

I liked the narrative technique; the jumping from past to present and back. Unfortunately, it culminates in an epiphany. It's a fine epiphany, I suppose. The problem I have with it is that it is that very moment that they choose to show in the previews. That is, the preview sells you on a movie filled with the 15 years it took Ben and Katie to grow apart. Instead, you're stuck with the end of it and all of the cool images come in the last five minutes.

Okay, a moment ago, I said the epiphany was "fine," I'd like to take that back now. In any other movie, with probably any other couple, the epiphany would be fine. In The Story Of Us, it isn't. It doesn't fit. The film sets up for ninety minutes how Ben and Katie have fallen out of love. It establishes perfectly why they won't be trying again. Thus, the epiphany and resulting decision seems to be out of place. It doesn't fit. It's as if at the last minute, a happy Hollywood ending was tacked on. The truth is, it doesn't fit the characters and it doesn't fit the film.

The end ruins an already shaky film. The only things that kept me watching were the moments of humor and the music. Strung throughout the film is a wonderful song Eric Clapton is singing that fits the film perfectly.

All in all, The Story Of Us is about two people who have children, who ruin their marriage and cause them to fall out of love and hate each other until the last possible moment when they decide to go out for Chinese food. There are better examples of films about the disintegration of love and relationships and as soon as I see one, I'll be sure to cite it so you watch it instead of this!

For other dramas about families, please check out my reviews of:
Once And Again Season Two
Cyrus
Parenthood Season One

4/10

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

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


| | |

A Primarily Bad Movie: Primary Colors Fails

The Good: Adrian Lester's acting, Kathy Bates' character, Occasional line of dialogue
The Bad: John Travolta, Plot, Characters, Most everything
The Basics: A huge disappointment in the crappy impression of Bill Clinton that John Travolta does, Primary Colors left me wanting the two hours, twenty-four minutes of my life back!


When I was much much younger, I got an aquarium for my birthday and I had fish for many years. At that point in my life, I wanted to be a marine biologist and my parents liked that idea. When I was twelve, I went away to a sleepaway summer camp and my parents got rid of my fish because I, in their esteemed view, hadn't been taking adequate care of them. That was their right, I suppose. Earlier this year, I was visiting my father and I got my aquarium back from him. I've put together one model in my life and my idea with all of this was, I didn't want to have to dust the model because it has fragile parts. My thought was, I would get the aquarium, clean it up, get some glass for the top and enclose the model after making a little diorama base for it. It's a good idea, but my old aquarium still has scum from that time well over a decade and a half ago when it was put in the basement.

The point to this whole story? Since I returned the aquarium to my possession and my new house, I've not gotten around to cleaning it. Removing old calcium deposits from glass is an annoying, painstaking chore. It involves using a sharp razorblade as delicate tool to scrape off the deposits and streaks and grime.

What does this have to do with the film Primary Colors? After the first forty-five minutes of this awful, awful film, I looked around my room, saw the aquarium and got out a razorblade to clean it while watching the rest of the movie. You know what? The second half of the film was no better and my aquarium finally got cleaned; I have hopes the model will soon be enshrined.

So, what's so bad about Primary Colors? First, it has John Travolta. It has John Travolta upstaging everyone else who appears in the film whom I know to be competent in other works. A perfect example would be one of my favorites, Maura Tierney. She's always upstaged by Travolta, the camera always goes from her to him and it's sad.

Second, John Travolta's character and his acting. If you were an adult during the first Bush administration back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, you might recall Dana Carvey's wonderful impersonations of George Bush. If you were even halfway astute, you might have realized that soon after Carvey's impersonation became popularized, the VAST majority of Bush impersonations became impersonations of Carvey impersonating Bush rather than actually impersonating Bush. John Travolta's character is an impression of Bill Clinton. The problem is, while he has most of the mannerisms down, he has nowhere near the charisma. Both the character and the actor fail to portray anything nearly as genuine as Bill Clinton did. Worse still is the acting; during a crucial scene near the very end, Travolta loses his Clinton-esque accent and mannerisms and delivers a speech as John Travolta. The only thing worse than his Clinton style character impersonation is Travolta being himself.

Primary Colors is an example of a turn of the old phrase "What if we threw a party and nobody showed?"; What if you had a party filled with great guests and then tied and gagged them all? The film is filled with great actors and actresses: Maura Tierney, Kathy Bates, Billy Bob Thorton, Emma Thompson, and Adrian Lester (more on him later), but they are given horrid lines, usually bland characters (most of whom are caricatures of decent people from the Clinton administration), and stuck in a tired, predictable, plodding, depressingly simple plot.

The film, quite simply, is about Jack Stanton and his rise from Southern governor and political obscurity to Democratic presidential candidate. The film focuses quite a bit on the political machinations behind his campaign as well as his relationship with his wife. The real crux of the film is the character Henry, who is enlisted to run the grassroots campaign as the movie opens. The problem is, too often the story shifts away from him and the camera focuses on Jack.

Henry is the bright spot of the movie. The shining glimmer of hope in an otherwise murky film that feels like an un-funny Saturday Night Live sketch dragged out too long. So long it doesn't even know it's dead. Henry is played by Adrian Lester and his acting makes the character. His acting allows us to overlook the oversimplified idealism shattered story that is the essence of Henry's character arc. The closest hope the film has outside Lester's exceptional work interpreting an otherwise standard character, is in the character of Libby played by Kathy Bates. She's one of those people that was a hippie back in the day, filled with idealism and still has a glimmer in her eye about the political process and the goals of her politician. It's from her character that the film's few decent lines are delivered.

The problem is her character is also corrupted beyond believability. As one of the most important events in the film nears, she declares that Stanton's choice will be a test that will either make or break her faith in him. She declares this, he fails the test and she doesn't just leave. One might argue that the action she takes is more extreme and meaningful, but I would argue that the philosophy with which she speaks about the test before the verdict comes indicates her move would simply have been to throw her allegiance to another candidate. That is to say, she speaks of such principles and the focus and diction is on a desire to have an ideal that it's too hard to suspend the disbelief for what she ends up doing. It reads wrong. Whatever the "historical truth" beyond her character might have been, the specific lines she used indicate a different action that made sense for her character to take.

The simple truth about Primary Colors is is that it is a formulaic political film and it's populated by bad everything. It's poorly written, unimaginatively directed, filled with good actors delivering bland performances; it's not funny, it's not dramatic, it's not much of anything. The only plus side I can find in the film in the final analysis is that perhaps you'll get to that project you've been putting off while watching it. I know I'm happy my aquarium is ready to have its diorama built inside it.

For other political works, please check out my reviews of:
The West Wing
Charlie Wilson's War
The Hurt Locker

2.5/10

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

© 2010, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |