Unremarkable Sequel: Mission: Impossible 2 Is Entirely Unimpressive

The Good: Adequately performed, Moments of concept/character
The Bad: Absolutely dull protagonists, Painfully predictable, Horrible dialogue, Ridiculous action sequences
The Basics: Playing one trick over and over and over and over again, Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a cheap sequel.


As a movie reviewer, there are any number of films that I watch based on its newness, potential popularity and the likely interest of my readers. There are, as an unfortunate offshoot of that, movies that I watch then somewhat out of rote; to complete the gaps in a film series I once began or saw later sequels to. When I sat down to Mission: Impossible 2, it was certainly one of those movies; I saw the two most recent sequels and a few months ago, I saw the first film in the series with Tom Cruise. I saw Mission: Impossible 2 as a nice break from going through the James Bond films (I only have the Dalton and Brosnon years left!), but honestly, I did not “miss” the movie when I did not go see it in theaters fourteen years ago.

My initial antipathy toward Mission: Impossible 2 was certainly appropriate; I cannot think of a sequel in recent memory that was less exciting or interesting than Mission: Impossible 2. Mission: Impossible 2 feels like exactly what it is: a blasé sequel that is more designed for the spectacle of Summer Blockbuster Season than a viewing that evaluates substance. From heavily-choreographed car chases to the opening rock climbing scene to generic long-shots of Ethan Hunt standing on an Australian prairie, everything about Mission: Impossible 2 screams “look, don’t think!”

A plane carrying a Russian scientist, Dr. Nekhorvich, and his bag with a deadly genetically-engineered disease (Chimera) and its cure (Bellerophon) crashes after Nekhorvich believes he has met with agent Ethan Hunt (using the alias Dmitri). The real Ethan Hunt’s vacation is interrupted when he is tasked with recruiting the brilliant thief, Nyah Nordoff-Hall for the mission to recover the Chimera virus. Hunt tracks Hall to a swanky villa where she is attempting to steal a necklace that is going to come up for auction days later. Hunt tests Hall and offers her immunity from international prosecution for her many past crimes in exchange for helping him on his mission. After a protracted race, Hall reluctantly agrees and Ethan Hunt gets his mission: Hunt is tasked with getting Hall close to Sean Ambrose, the man who impersonated Hunt on the plane, so they may recover Chimera.

When the Impossible Missions Forces put out a bulletin that Hunt has been imprisoned in Seville, Nyah is rescued by her old beau, Ambrose. Nyah and Hunt’s Impossible Missions team converge on Sydney, Australia, where Ambrose and his team have taken up residence. But Ambrose is not stupid; his deputy, Hugh Stamp, is suspicious of the timing of her return and performs surveillance on her. Using Nyah, Ethan and his team learn just how lethal the Chimera virus is. They track the CEO of Biocyte, who is trying to buy back the virus and its cure. Ambrose has the cure, but not the virus; so Ethan Hunt ends up in the Biocyte facility at the same time as Ambrose, with both attempting to get the virus. In a game of cat and mouse, Hunt works to destroy all of the virus, while Ambrose tries to get the final sample to sell on the black market.

Mission: Impossible 2 lacks iconic scenes and moments that make it into widespread pop culture. The bungey jumping scene in Mission: Impossible 2 has the feeling of being a cheap retread of the scene from Mission: Impossible where Tom Cruise’s Ethan Hunt does acrobatics that prevent him from touching a pressure-sensitive floor after rappelling into an otherwise secure room. While there are plenty of movies that do not have big moments that make it into the collective consciousness, the fact that Mission: Impossible 2 has nothing that comes close when the first film in the franchise only accents how mundane the movie is.

Fans of spy thrillers will be utterly unsurprised by Mission: Impossible 2. The reversals are telegraphed so far ahead that it is astonishing the writers even bothered with the direction they went. In the Mission: Impossible world, latex masks may be made so precisely that they completely fool intimate inspection. In Mission: Impossible 2, that is established in the first scene and so many characters use that same technology, so when director John Woo continues to use that conceit to “surprise” viewers, it is anything but surprising.

The writing in Mission: Impossible 2 is disappointing in that it attempts to disguise characterization and themes as dialogue in such a clunky way that it makes the viewer wince. When Nyah is rescued by Hunt within the Biocyte facility, there is a particularly horrible line that tries to nail home how the first impression of Nyah is not accurate (or the character has evolved) and it is so inorganic that it feels utterly contrived. Ironically, the character of Nyah is one of the few worthwhile ones in Mission: Impossible 2. I like characters who do not shy away from acts of sacrifice and Nyah rises to the occasion at a key moment, making a somewhat droll film watchable at the very least.

The villains in Mission: Impossible 2 are unfortunately generic. John McCloy is a greedy CEO whose business is built on creating viruses and cures, Hugh Stamp is the ultimate generic psychopath sidekick to the villain. Sean Ambrose is basically a thug who has exceptional knowledge of his adversary, which makes him interesting for about five minutes out of his entire time on screen. The most impressive aspect of Ambrose is his ultimate plan; instead of a diabolical plan to rule to world or kill a lot of people, he wants to make money the way rich people do: executing stock options. He just needs the seed money to buy Biocyte before the Chimera virus makes the stock price skyrocket.

The generic quality of the adversaries mirrors the blandness of the heroes. Ethan Hunt is granted no distinguishing characteristics in Mission: Impossible 2. He is a standard super spy the likes of which has been seen in every James Bond film ever and virtually every other spy film that prioritizes spectacle over reality in its storytelling. Tom Cruise does an adequate job of running, jumping and shooting guns in Mission: Impossible 2, but he and his co-stars are playing archetypes as opposed to actual characters.

Mission: Impossible 2 is a dull way to waste two hours, but it is not a movie that is in any way painful to watch (wincing from the bad dialogue aside). But when the biggest moment of the film is recognizing that Ethan Hunt’s boss is played by Sir Anthony Hopkins (who is not credited as one of the film’s big stars), as opposed to any of the action sequences, it is hard to say one has a spy film that is successful in any way.

For other Mission: Impossible movies, check out my reviews of:
Mission: Impossible
Mission: Impossible III
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol

3/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the films are rated from best to worst!

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

Simon Pegg's Remarkably Average How To Lose Friends And Alienate People.

The Good: Funny, Decent performances
The Bad: Light on character, Incredibly predictable
The Basics: Fun and funny, but not in any memorable or enduring ways, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is worth one viewing, if nothing else.


Reviewing movies has become a genuine thrill for me lately. It is fun to get into screenings and tonight was the first time the "and guest" part of my screening pass was actually utilized. It's also the first night I was not seated next to a pair of giggling sophomores. It was a treat for me to be able to take my friend to see How To Lose Friends And Alienate People; she's a big fan of Simon Pegg. I thought I was a Simon Pegg virgin, but then I realized he was in Mission: Impossible III (reviewed here!), though his performance made absolutely no impression on me.

When the film was over, my friend informed me that I might like some of Pegg's works that he has written as well as performed in, as they utilize his talents better than How To Lose Friends And Alienate People. I have to take her word for it, though I think I would like to see Pegg in other movies, as this one was a remarkably average comedy. It wasn't great, it wasn't bad; I laughed. It killed an evening. And so it goes. In virtually every way, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is an average film.

Sidney Young is a journalist who has never been on the a-list. In Britain, he is more or less despised while writing and editing a small magazine (The Post-Modern Review). After attempting to sneak into the BAFTAs with his pet pig (you know, the pig from Babe 3), he manages to crash an afterparty where he is chatting up Thandie Newton when his pig gets out and causes mayhem. This, however, brings him to the attention of U.S. publisher Clayton Harding, who was once a satirist and now owns some of the most successful magazines in the U.S. Clayton hires Sidney and the young Brit comes to the Big Apple to make his start.

Under the editors Lawrence Maddox and Alison Olsen, Sidney becomes familiar with the local up and coming talent, whom he is discouraged from speaking to while working on the "I Spy" desk. After meeting his idol, an aging actress named Rachel Petkoff - who is rejected for a feature in the magazine by Maddox - Sidney becomes infatuated with up-and-coming actress Sophie Maes. Sophie and the arrogant new director Vincent Lepak are both clients of Eleanor Johnson, so Sidney works to get on her good side. In the process, he and Alison discover they have more in common than they initially thought, Sidney inadvertently kills Sophie's dog and Sidney gets virtually everyone around him to despise him.

Actually, the title of the film, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is something of a misnomer: Sidney starts the film as a man with no real friends and he simply continues wandering through his professional life trying to be edgy. Sidney states throughout that he does not want to be one of the a-list, he does not want to be one of the people behind the velvet rope and so when he encounters Vincent, his instinct is to try to take the young new director down a few pegs because Vincent has not accomplished anything, yet is treated like he owns the world. That instinct makes for an interesting character, but Sidney is surrounded by terribly serious americans who all take their jobs seriously and gawk over the stars.

The comedy in How To Lose Friends And Alienate People tends to come in the form, largely, of physical comedy. Things like Sophie wading through a pool to get through a crowd leave Sidney gaping. There are tried and true physical comedy moments, like Sidney dancing and his weird gyrations virtually clearing the dance floor off, Sidney and his landlady checking out the transsexual Sidney unwittingly brought home his first night in New York City with the classic head tilt, and quite a bit of sloppy eating gags. How To Lose Friends And Alienate People does not claim to be highbrow, but it strives for fun. The thing is, as far as the physical comedy goes, much of this movie contains Simon Pegg impersonating Rowan Atkinson. The body flailings, the mouth screw ups; these are hardly unique to Atkinson. However, the way Atkinson performs seems to be emulated by Pegg in many of the scenes that he is forced to carry with limited dialogue.

Largely, the movie succeeds on the level of fun, because there is not much to it that is substantial or surprising or new. From the moment Alison Olsen - who Sidney meets the night before he takes his job at the magazine at a bar - turns up at the magazine, the film becomes a fairly predictable sequence of events whereby Sidney strives to have sex with Sophie before Maddox does, while all the while developing a much more substantive friendship with Alison. As a result, How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is pretty much the intersection between the obvious fish-out-of-water comedy and the most predictable romantic comedy.

There are, however, two great character moments in the movie that make it worth recommending. The first is that Sidney is confronted with Rachel Petkoff, a star he truly is struck by. First, this provides Sidney with a moment that allows writers Toby Young (who wrote the book this movie was based upon, which I have not read) and Peter Straughan (the screen writer) to make a comment on how women are treated in Hollywood (or New York City). Age is not revered in the U.S. and Sidney's gushing over Petkoff makes for an enjoyable moment that says much about his character and about U.S. celebrity society. This moment also offers the potential for a real twist in the movie, which would have been for Sidney to pursue something with Petkoff. It is a shame the film chooses that moment to introduce Sophie in a big wet way that makes Sidney absolutely gush like everyone else at the party. It is a shame that potential was so quickly squelched.

The other character element for Sidney that makes How To Lose Friends And Alienate People worth watching is that he is estranged from his father. This reveals several secrets of his past that I shall not ruin, but do make him a much more interesting character. In fact, the only problem with these character revelations that come out from the estrangement of Sidney and his father is that once they are out, Sidney begins to act a different way. I resist the idea that once people are revealed to be smart, they suddenly act that way if they have been hiding it so effectively so long.

Outside Sidney, though, none of the characters are particularly likable. Clayton only is humanized in a few lucid scenes where he makes decisions based upon nostalgia, like hiring Sidney and sending Sidney to write a scathing article on Vincent. Maddox is cheating on his wife and Alison falls into the young stereotype of mid-twentysomething who is still solving her problems with alcohol. Similarly, Sophie is written like a bad cliche of the sudden starlet and when her dog Cuba disappears from the movie, it is not a moment too soon.

How To Lose Friends And Alienate People is undeniably well-cast. Jeff Bridges and Gillian Anderson return to the big screen after their summer blockbusters for roles that are not their greatest, but utilize them well enough to make the viewer psyched to see them when they show up on screen. This was the first movie I had seen Megan Fox in, but she was convincing as the absent-minded and vacuous sudden starlet. Rather problematically, her character appears wearing fur near the end of the film when she was characterized as a vegetarian who didn't wear anything made of animal, but this cannot be held against Fox.

Moments before How To Lose Friends And Alienate People began, my friend who accompanied me informed me that Kirsten Dunst was in the film and my heart sank some. For those who do not follow my reviews, I spent some time last year trying to figure out why Kirsten Dunst was considered a decent actress and I stopped when I finally saw Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (reviewed here!) and Dunst was decent in it. In this, it is tough to evaluate her work; her character is such a bland archetype that there is not much to work with. That said, she does not infuse any real zest into the character and is largely relegated to playing straightwoman to Pegg's absurd antics.

As for Simon Pegg, he is decent as Sidney, but he does not light the world on fire. He is a good physical comedian, though his required flailings about in How To Lose Friends And Alienate People do seem awfully familiar as a fan of Rowan Atkinson. Still, the verbal comedy he is given is funny and he pulls off the role of Sidney well enough that I am curious to see him in other things.

Who will enjoy How To Lose Friends And Alienate People? Anyone looking for lighter fare. This is a screwball comedy for adults and it fits the bill for that. My "recommend" is for viewing, not for buying on DVD. It's enjoyable, but it hardly seems like it would be an essential piece for the library of fans of any of the performers involved.

For other works with Megan Fox, check out my reviews of:
Jonah Hex
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Transformers

5/10

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

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

Josh Brolin May Be Many Things, But He's No W.

The Good: Moments of character insight and decent direction, General format of story
The Bad: Pacing, Acting (casting), Light on DVD extras
The Basics: Oliver Stone's W. is strangely unsatisfying - especially to those who despise the administration of the former president - from the casting on down.


Having survived the administration of George W. Bush (which was not always a forgone conclusion in my case), I finally found myself at an emotional place where I was ready to open up to some entertainment about the former president. I had, previously, watched the documentary George W. Bush: Faith In The White House (reviewed here!) and been irked at the propaganda feel of that. So, when I felt ready to lighten up and allow myself to be entertained by the foibles of the former president, I got out W. on DVD. If there was anyone ready and eager for a film the ripped into the administration of George W. Bush, it was me.

Unfortunately, W. is not that film. Oliver Stone, strangely, takes the safest possible route creating a timid, neutral presentation on the 43rd president that ultimately makes no real statement in any direction. This is the story of a hapless man, trying desperately to live up to his father's expectations, not of greatness, but rather of productivity. In W. George H.W. Bush does not have aspirations that his son Junior will do anything extraordinary, merely that he will do something and stick with it long enough to accomplish something. Sadly, Oliver Stone allows most of the compelling moments in the last eight years fly by with little recognition of their importance or George W. Bush's role in creating the history we have just lived through.

Following the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, George W. Bush and his cabinet and advisors consider how to strike back at those involved. As Bush's approval ratings soar, key members of his inner circle - Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, George Tenet, and Condoleezza Rice - encourage Bush to link Saddam Hussein to the terrorist attacks to allow a strike against Iraq by U.S. forces. As the speeches are altered and interrogation techniques are approved, the United States moves closer to war and George W. Bush considers how he got to the most powerful position in the world.

He reminisces of time in Texas and at Yale, his fraternity days and the times when he was just a young, rowdy guy who drank, danced and had sex with some blonde he didn't have money for a ring for. He dreams of baseball and catching a hit that might otherwise be a home run and he slouches from oil rigs to investment banking jobs to working on his father's presidential campaign, while George H.W. Bush continually bails him out of jams he gets in (sometimes literally). George W. Bush meets Laura, finds god, gets sober and on his father's campaign meets with the extremists in the Republican base, specifically Karl Rove, who sees in George W. Bush the potential to be the tool the ideologues need to restore their vision of America to the presidency.

W. might have succeeded has it not been released in 2008. Seriously. I write this not because the film would be any better years from now, nor because of the hope the Obama Presidency created to foster the impression many of Bush's most egregious positions and executive orders would be overturned, but rather because the film had to compete against Frost/Nixon. The strength of Frost/Nixon is arguably on the performance of Frank Langella, a man who neither looks nor sounds like former President Nixon. Langella could not (obviously) get over the first part, but within moments of his appearance on screen, Langella's body language and speech patterns are those of Richard Nixon. Langella transforms into Nixon and it is eerie and powerful to watch the movie because the performance is so amazing.

Sadly, Josh Brolin does not pull off George W. Bush. Josh Brolin, who impressed me with his performance in No Country For Old Men (reviewed here!), is cast to embody George W. Bush and he fails utterly, save two shots in the entire movie, one on the baseball diamond, one talking to his speechwriters with his hair rumpled. The rest of the time, Brolin utterly fails to embody Bush. It is not just that he does not look much like Bush, but Brolin does not move like the former president at all. Will Farrell had a much better take on George W. Bush for one simple reason; presenting a parody of George W. Bush often presents the most real body language of the man. Before those who still adore our previous president jump on that, go back and watch videos of George W. Bush; the man has a very loose body language. His head wobbles, when he speaks - especially in the early years of his administration - he shifts from foot to foot, and when he first appears before cameras, he looks more determined to not break into a smile than anything else. He's an easygoing guy . . . he's a GUY. What some found charming or appealing was his accessibility and that largely came from his body language of being a loose, cool guy one could sit down, have a beer with and watch the game with.

Josh Brolin completely fails to get that. He is stiff throughout W., treating everything as if it is serious and while he appropriately furrows his brow whenever anyone asks Bush to consider something, Brolin doesn't get the performance right. Thandie Newton, who plays Condoleezza Rice, pulls off her brief supporting role better than Brolin manages to get the main role.

Unfortunately, because so many of the figures are public figures still at the forefront of the American consciousness, the look of the characters is incredibly important and here the casting and make-up were not as precise as they ought to have been. Jeffrey Wright's Colin Powell's forehead is a little too high, Toby Jones's Karl Rove is too obviously toady and James Cromwell - whose work I usually adore - is hit or miss as George H.W. Bush depending on the scene. In fact, the only casting that is perfectly executed is Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney. Dreyfuss assumes the look and bearing of the former vice president perfectly, though he essentially replays his role from The American President to pull this off. Elizabeth Banks and Ellen Burstyn both evolve into the roles of Laura and Barbara Bush, respectively, but they do not appear on screen convincingly as either at their first appearances. Oliver Stone ought to get credit, though for taking two beautiful women and toning down their looks to try to fit the roles (conversely, Newton plays her Hollywood good looks perfectly in the role as Rice, who always seemed attentive to her appearance).

So, the casting is seriously off. Add to that, W. is poorly paced and more than the character lacking direction, there are too many portions where the viewer is left feeling like Oliver Stone does not know what he wants to be saying with the film. Ultimately, he ends up saying very little. As Bush is pressed toward war by Rove and Cheney, Powell stands as the lone dissenter and Bush gleefully steamrolls over his objections to the group's plans. Powell, unfortunately, is presented with only limited backbone and the viewer ends up feeling more empathy for him than for the hapless title character.

More than anything, Oliver Stone seems to be making a film that takes the tact that George W. Bush was a guy who did not truly care about anything who stumbled into the presidency. Once there, he was content to let others do what they felt, signing off on critical orders based on how many pages he was handed. He is not a caricature here as a witless man or incompetent president, merely a guy who roams uncaring through the world until he is at an important office that actually makes demands upon him. The character is not pitiable, nor is he or his exploits interesting to watch (just as many of us were uninterested in participating in his years as president).

Now on DVD, W. features a similarly listless and controversy-free commentary track by Oliver Stone where he avoids any real thorny issues and talks more about the making of his boring film. There are trailers for other Lionsgate films and there is a mildly more engaging featurette on the actual Bush Administration in which several liberals decry his policies without getting too specific or relating it back to the film.

And keep in mind, I was ready to like this film! But at the end of the day, I wanted W. to inform or entertain or some combination of both. It did neither. Instead, it plodded along for far too long with a guy who could be virtually any Southern or Midwestern heir doing little and evoking little empathy or interest for doing it.

For other works with Toby Jones, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Snow White And The Huntsman
The Hunger Games
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
My Week With Marilyn
Captain America: The First Avenger
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part II
Frost/Nixon
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Ever After
Orlando

5/10

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

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

Painfully Obvious, Run Fatboy Run Is Average, But Gets Some Laughs.

The Good: Funny at times, Decent-enough DVD bonus features, Acting isn't bad
The Bad: Utterly predictable plot and character arcs
The Basics: Funny, but so predictable to not hold up for a second viewing, Run Fatboy Run is not worth the buy, even if it is all right.


Of late it seems much easier to convince my partner to go with me to comedies or watch comedy films when I pick them up from the local library, so it was little surprise to me when I brought her home a choice, she picked Run Fatboy Run out of the pile, as that was the lone comedy I had brought home. It was actually not a surprise at all that she picked the movie; David Schwimmer directed Run Fatboy Run and my partner is a huge fan of Friends (reviewed here!). I had seen several previews for the movie on other discs I had gotten out, so it seemed like it would be a fairly fun movie. It was stiflingly average and obvious in virtually every way.

Run Fatboy Run is the directoral debut of David Schwimmer and continued to introduce Simon Pegg to a broader audience in the United States. One suspects that his role in Star Trek (reviewed here!) has pretty well nailed him into the public's mind there, but Run Fatboy Run made him even more recognizable on the art theater circuits here. If nothing else, the movie is fun, even if it is not superlative in any aspect.

On his wedding day, Dennis Doyle gets cold feet and literally jumps out the window and runs for his life. Five years after he abandoned his pregnant fiance Libby at the altar, Dennis is a security officer at a women's clothing store and slouching through his life. He botches taking his son to see the stage production of The Lord Of The Rings and gets himself arrested, which continues to lower him in the eyes of Libby, their son Jake and Libby's new beau, Whit. Whit makes it clear to Dennis that he intends to move forward with Libby and become Jake's stepfather.

Feeling threatened by Whit's presence in Libby and his son's lives, Dennis vows to change. Whit, as it turns out, runs marathons for charities and he is running in the London Marathon in three weeks. Dennis vows to Libby that he shall run in and complete the same marathon, which leads his best friend Gordon to bet everything he has in Dennis's favor. With the respect of his son, the heart of the woman he loves, forgiveness on all of his back rent and everything Gordon owns on the line, Dennis begins training for the London Marathon!

The fundamental problem with Run Fatboy Run is that it is so terribly predictable as to almost completely gut any merit to the film. Every opportunity for the most predictable humorous reversal is taken, such that anyone with even the most basic knowledge of how comedy works will remain unimpressed and unsurprised. So, for example, after a spinning class, Whit warns Dennis to be careful going down the stairs and Dennis scoffs at him before falling down the stairs. By the time the morning of the race comes and Dennis enthusiastically sets his alarmclock and declares he has to be gone from the house by seven, only the dimmest viewer will not figure out that he is going to oversleep. The movie is painfully predictable, which makes one wonder how it took two people to write this movie.

In fact, when one reads the setup: man vows to run race against his love interest's suitor to try to win her back, earn his son's respect and keep his house, the film pretty much writes itself . . . if one is not creative. Unfortunately, screenwriters Michael Ian Black and Simon Pegg are not at all creative with Run Fatboy Run. As a result, there is the most predictable sense of conflict, Dennis runs into an obstacle which causes him to give up, has an incident which renews his resolve and he goes on. Even worse than the predictable arc with Dennis are the peripheral characters.

Whit seems like an up-front guy, but as he slips, he falls farther than anyone would guess. That is, unless one has read anything back to a Greek comedy, which always has the adversaries to the hero turning out to be flawed in deeper ways than the protagonist! Libby is little more than an accessory to Whit and in the film her role quickly becomes to look pensive at key moments and process her emotions in ways that the viewer gets even when she is not speaking.

Libby is ably played by Thandie Newton, who has a good sense of nuance and is all that saves Libby from being one of the worst roles for women in years on screen. Libby's arc is predictable, but Newton does a decent job of going through all of the appropriate motions to sell the character's growing sense of doubt in Whit. Similarly, it is no fault of Hank Azaria - who plays Whit - that Whit is so badly written. Azaria does an excellent job of planting the seeds of Whit's sublimated anger and discomfort early in the movie, but the arc is entirely predictable.

I've not seen Simon Pegg in much on screen so far, but it does seem like his contract requires him to appear in all of his films with hair that is sweat-plastered or waterlogged (Star Trek submerged him in a cooling duct for this, for example). In Run Fatboy Run Pegg has several scenes, running and simply anxious, where Dennis is covered in sweat and his hair is plastered to his skull. I'm mentioning this rather than going into depth with an analysis of Pegg's acting because even with the limited exposure I've had to Pegg's work, I've seen this performance from him before. Dennis is a slacker character who tries to make good and Pegg plays that role a lot, just like Michael Cera plays goodnatured young geeks.

On DVD, Run Fatboy Run comes with a few deleted scenes, which do nothing to improve the movie in any significant way. There is a commentary track and it is funny; Pegg, Newton, Schwimmer and Simon Pegg's mother, Gill, participate and they have a great sense of humor about the work. There are trailers as well and an outtake reel which is amusing. These are pretty much the standard DVD bonus features for a comedy and they add little extra value to the very average movie.

And that is the death knell of Run Fatboy Run; it starts fine and is funny, but it is not terribly original or worth watching more than once.

For other works with Thandie Newton, be sure to visit my reviews of:
2012
The Pursuit Of Happyness
Crash
The Chronicles Of Riddick

5/10

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

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

A Wonderful Tale Of Struggle, The Pursuit Of Happyness Is Tough To Recommend As Entertainment.

The Good: Good characters, Decent acting, Good story, Decent DVD bonus features
The Bad: Mood is oppressive
The Basics: A strong human drama about the struggle of a poor man to better himself while taking care of his child, The Pursuit Of Happyness is a wonderful movie.


In watching many, many films, I am beginning to appreciate what it means to watch films for enjoyment. I am also able to differentiate between movies that are great and difficult to watch, like The Soloist and films that are so uncomfortable as to be less-than-great, like The House Of Sand And Fog. So, when I sat down and watched The Pursuit Of Happyness, I was acutely aware that while it was difficult and awkward to watch in many points, I was still watching a wonderful film. Even so, The Pursuit Of Happyness is such a long journey to get to such a minimal catharsis that I find it difficult to consider a perfect film, or even one I would be excited about seeing again.

In fact, as someone who has been poor for years, The Pursuit Of Happyness is no great revelation on how life is in capitalist America. As one who has struggled with running small businesses and paying bills, The Pursuit Of Happyness is hardly entertaining or enlightening. While I watched the film and it is one of my wife's favorites, it is one that is a tougher sell for my permanent collection. This film is based upon the life of Chris Gardner and as my usual caveat, my review is solely of the film and what is presented in it.

Chris Garner is working in San Francisco where he is months behind on the rent and is having difficulty selling his advanced medical scanners to doctors there. Having sunk his entire life savings into the venture, he is falling behind and relying on his partner, Linda. Doing his best to raise his son, Christopher, Chris divides his time between his sales and trying to find the next thing for him. His direction in life soon takes focus when he gets an interview at Dean Witter. But attempting to become a stockbroker means a six-month unpaid internship and while Chris wants it, he does not know how to keep juggling everything.

Linda abandons Chris and her son for a job opportunity in New York City as Chris begins his internship. When that happens, Chris clings to taking care of Christopher and he networks to try to make the most of his internship. Moving out of the apartment, then getting evicted from a local motel, the pair whittles away all they have while Chris works hard to prove himself at Dean Witter. But when the two find themselves unable to stay in a shelter for a night, things look truly dire for them.

What makes The Pursuit Of Happyness at all extraordinary is the level of character presented in it. Chris Garner is a character it is very easy to empathize with. Chris clearly loves Christopher and he makes all manner of sacrifices for him. But the relief from the overwhelming oppression of the mood of the movie comes when Chris is able to be creative with his son. Forced to stay with his son in the bathroom of a subway station, Chris makes the experience a creative one by convincing Christopher that they've gone back in time and they are surrounded by dinosaurs.

The Pursuit Of Happyness actually has moments of charm and moments when it is not entirely depressing. The movie features one of the best-ever job interviews ever when Chris tries to impress his potential Dean Witter employer by solving a Rubix Cube puzzle for him after hounding him for weeks. The tension in the scene is exciting and entertaining.

Unfortunately, scenes like that are the exception to the rule in this film. Most of the movie is filled with moments where Chris is struggling. The film is preoccupied with Chris suffering as all he clings to is taken away from him. Instead of things getting better, after Chris takes the internship the situation gets dire. Chris is abandoned, his money is taken from him through bad loans and parking tickets that he is forced (abruptly) to pay, and his relationship with Christopher becomes strained. This is a long way to go for the point and all it truly does is make one want to rally against the forces of capitalism that prioritize businesses like Dean Witter over the human element.

The Pursuit Of Happyness features wonderful acting by Will Smith and this has Smith almost devoid of his comedic tendencies. Instead, this is Will Smith at his dramatically most convincing. As his character suffers, the viewer feels it well. Smith plays frustrated, lost and desperately poor. He does an exceptional job of playing a man struggling, down to body language that makes him seem constantly stressed. As well, in the scenes that require it, Will Smith is articulate and convincing in his character's ambition. The final moments of the movie have truly amazing acting by Will Smith as well.

Will Smith plays opposite his son Jaden Christopher Syre Smith and the two make a credible on-screen family. Jaden does well looking affectionately at Will Smith and while this is not great acting, the kid pulls it off credibly. The family seems realistic and Jaden makes the suffering of his character work as well as his father does. As well, Jaden and Will Smith play off Thandie Newton, who plays Linda, beautifully and the three make a credible on-screen family.

On DVD, The Pursuit Of Happyness comes loaded with as many bonus features as a typical drama has. In addition to a commentary track with director Gabriele Muccino, there is a featurette that includes an interview with the actual Chris Gardner. As well, there is a music viceo, a featurette on the Rubik's Cube and another one on the relationship between the Smiths on camera and off. As well, there is a featurette on the director's perspective on adapting Gardner's story. This is pretty thorough set of bonus features.

But ultimately, The Pursuit Of Happyness is a depressing movie that I enjoyed and because my partner has it on her shelf, we will watch it again. But it is not the best film I've ever seen and there are other depressing movies that have more of a catharsis than this one.

For other works with Will Smith, please check out my reviews of:
Hancock
I Am Legend
Men In Black II
Men In Black

9/10 (N)

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

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Rough And Tumble Science Fiction: The Chronicles Of Riddick Trilogy.

The Good: Two surprisingly wonderful science fiction films, Decent DVD bonus features
The Bad: Dark Fury is a little weaker, There are supposedly two more movies in the works . . .
The Basics: Better than the sum of its parts, the Riddick Trilogy has all three current science fiction films together in one pack!


Sometimes, I find myself fascinated by what makes it and what does not. This is especially true for me with science fiction projects where the storytellers have an ambitious view of the universe. The fact that the saga The Chronicles Of Riddick is stalled at two movies and an animated adventure actually left me surprised. And, for the time being, the best way to get the whole story (though Vin Diesel insists there were stories written for two more full films) is the Riddick Trilogy two-pack.

And yes, it is a two-pack, despite the three movies contained on it. Pitch Black and Dark Fury share a disc, with the extended cut of The Chronicles Of Riddick getting a disc of its own.

This contains:
Pitch Black
Dark Fury
The Chronicles Of Riddick with no additional programming, features or incentives to buy. Sure, the buyer saves a little shelf space with this slipcased DVD set and the fact that it is only on two discs, but it is not a huge set to begin with and there is no reason to upgrade if one already has the three component DVDs.

In Pitch Black, a starship transporting settlers for a distant world, and a dangerous felon, is damaged in flight. The ship crashes on a barren, inhospitable planet. Some ten survivors set out from the crash site to find water, including the felon, Riddick. When a crewmember disappears, Riddick is the natural suspect, but alien animals are soon found to be the real culprits. Finding an abandoned mining establishment yields the conclusion that the animals were responsible for the slaughter of this outpost, which seems fine given their aversion to light, until a planetary eclipse seems imminent and the survivors come to understand their hours are numbered.

Pitch Black is not a movie that's going to light the world on fire, and it didn't. But it does some things very well. The first is in the casting. While there aren't any terrifically extraordinary performances in Pitch Black, the parts were well cast for the actors. Radha Mitchell is credible as the sudden captain of the ship, who is uncertain with her new authority and lacks experience. Keith David is great as the Islamic pilgrim Abu. And Rhiana Griffith is decent as Jack, which requires the character to idolize Riddick. Even Claudia Black's brief role in Pitch Black was well suited to her athleticism.

The ultimate in intuitive casting, though comes in the form of Vin Diesel as Richard B. Riddick. Vin Diesel is a heavy who is not the most naturally emoting actor. Riddick is a hardened criminal whose role needs to be sympathetic but realistic. That is to say that for Riddick to be plausible, he cannot be so likable as to make the viewer forget that he has murdered in his past. There needs to be something dangerous and edgy to him. Vin Diesel's quiet underacting executes this character perfectly. This could be the role Vin Diesel was born to play, as they say.

Despite the rather basic plot – Pitch Black soon degenerates into a fairly standard “pick ‘em off” horror movie – the concept behind Pitch Black is refreshingly intriguing and it remains true to itself. There is no one enemy in Pitch Black. The horror that the survivors face is simply a pack of animals. There's no negotiations, There's always another and there is no leader to be wiped out to make the rest back off. Given Hollywood's obsession with villains, Pitch Black is refreshing for the way it creates a species and sticks with the concept.

Moreover, the movie smartly utilizes the double threat. Our survivors are beset from the outside by the alien animals and the ravages of the environment. From within, the group is plagued by fears of Riddick and the corruption of his jailer, Johns, who also becomes a thorn in Captain Fry's side. By adding the human villainy element, Pitch Black attempts to keep the movie focused on the characters, even if all they are doing is trying to flee through the wilderness.

The characters, if not entirely memorable, are diverse. It's nice to see a future presented where the crew is not all white, not all male and not all good. Pitch Black has religious characters, the greedy Paris, and is fronted by a criminal. It's a less polished vision of the future and the opening immediately conjures recollections of Alien. This is a dark future with humanity stretching out into the galaxy with many of its current faults, like capitalism and a failed penal system.

On a simple, stylistic front, the alien animals are cool. the creature and set designs do transport the viewer to a very different time and place quite effectively.

But is it enough? David Twohy does an adequate job at directing, but there are a number of editorial choices that are questionable. Employing the standard conventions of horror as opposed to keeping the expressive science fiction tone and style from the movie's opening scenes quickly begins to detract from the story. We have quick cuts and blurred images and later in the movie, images are cut away rather than revealed. The movie becomes horror; playing with the audience instead of keeping the audience as witness to the events and struggles of the survivors. This is only truly effective at the very end with the last casualty of the film, which causes a reaction in the viewer. But even when that happens, part of the power of the action is that the image is clear, revealed fully for the viewer, unlike so many of the previous deaths.

And while the plot becoming something standard might be forgivable – we've seen the “slaughter the crew” in science fiction/horror since Alien – the editing is less so. There are great moments of special effects that set the viewer up for a style of film that is disappointing when abandoned for the conventions of horror. The eclipse shots are beautiful cinematography. After that shot, though, there are no further examples of extraordinary visual technique until the last shot of the movie.

In Dark Fury, Riddick, Imam and Jack are in their little ship heading for civilization when they are awoken by the presence of another ship. That ship is a giant mercenary vessel and Riddick quickly represents the potential that getting rescued represents. Unfortunately for him, the computer systems positively identify him and his attempt to pass himself off as another member of the crew from his former ship fails. After a brief fight with security forces from the mercenary ship, Riddick is given an audience with the noblewoman aboard, while Imam and Jack are detained.

The captain of the ship is a woman, arguably a psychopath, who is fascinated with serial killers. She has a collection of them frozen in her gallery and she has the desire to have Riddick join her collection. But first, she wants to watch him kill, which she delights in. When Riddick refuses, she throws Imam and Jack in with two giant, squidlike aliens which will kill them if Riddick does not kill the creatures first!

Dark Fury might tell an interesting story which fleshes out the Riddick universe, but it falls sadly flat when it comes to making a whole lot of sense. The short film makes a point of introducing Tooms - who is seen hunting Riddick at the outset of The Chronicles Of Riddick - and that is a nice tie-in. But beyond that, Dark Fury makes little sense. The reason for the nonsensical quality is the woman who is interested in collecting Riddick. Her stated desire is to watch the act of killing. However, in the first conflict with her crew, Riddick manages to take out some members of her crew.

But then, she pits Riddick against the giant aliens. The aliens are essentially violent creatures with no apparent intelligence, so Riddick attempting to fight them is basically the same instinct and execution as a farmer executing cattle. Perhaps the analogy works better with a cowboy putting down a bull with mad cow disease, but the basic concept holds: if the woman truly wanted to see that type of violent activity, she could watch the nature channel.

The voice acting in Dark Fury is good, undoubtedly because the producers managed to get Vin Diesel (Riddick), Keith David (Imam) and others from the two movies to participate. The animation style is a style very familiar to those who watch anime. This is not trying to be an animated work that fools the viewer into thinking they are watching a live-action production. Instead, this is an animated work and the production looks good within the context that the physics are not quite those of reality.

Even so, the animators do a decent job of creating characters like the aliens Riddick must fight that would have been cost-prohibitive for a film to make. And the shootout in the landing bay is appropriately spectacular in its execution. The blood from that scene would have made a live-action version of it PG-13 and the animators clearly delighted in having Riddick play in zero gravity.

In The Chronicles Of Riddick, set five years after escaping the dangers presented in the nighttime of the eclipse in Pitch Black, Riddick finds himself hunted in his isolation with a bounty on his head. Stealing a ship, he heads to Helion Prime to find Imam and have the bounty removed from his head. There he meets with Aereon, an Elemental, who informs Riddick that he is the hope of the galaxy as a scourge is headed in their direction and his form of evil may be what's needed to fight the coming evil. Moments later, Helion Prime is overrun by the Necromongers.

The Necromongers are essentially a cult run by the Lord Marshal who converts entire planets by either brutally ripping out their souls or using a machine to somehow alter the citizens. The Necromongers are obsessed with finding the Underverse (which seems like a universe of the dead) and their conversion process identifies Riddick as a threat. Riddick finds himself on the run and soon finding the one person in the galaxy he still cares about.

The Chronicles of Riddick, since I first saw the bits of it I saw, made me question what makes a science fiction epic. I can't understand why The Chronicles Of Riddick is not considered a classic and why it was not more successful. I find only three real problems with The Chronicles of Riddick.

The first problem is that it felt long. A lot happens in the movie, but it felt long, even though I was engaged by it. The second problem is the unnecessary running. At the beginning of the movie, Riddick is literally running around Helion Prime and there's no real good reason for it. We know he can run; he starts the movie running. Why does he need to run constantly? The final problem is that the lead is Vin Diesel, who is not the powerhouse of quality acting. And that is not truly a problem; Riddick is a heavy, so Vin Diesel is perfectly cast. Objecting to Vin Diesel as Riddick as a reason for denying The Chronicles Of Riddick a legitimate place in the echelons of science fiction epics is like condemning The Princess Bride for casting Andre the Giant for the role of the giant there.

So, what does The Chronicles Of Riddick do right? The first and foremost thing the film does well is create a distinct sense of place. The universe is a dark and miserable place and the smarter races of the universe use whatever they need to in order to win, in short, they will fight evil with evil. Some of the more subtle concepts go unexplained. So, for example, when the Necromongers invade Helion Prime, the survivors are given the chance to convert or die forever. The citizens surrender and Riddick resists. Riddick's resistance does not inspire anyone to get off their knees. Humanity is broken.

The visual effects are impressive with a real sense of architecture and culture behind the buildings, ships and planets in The Chronicles of Riddick. I like that, it's easy to tell what the beliefs of the groups are and who and where the characters are. This movie creates a universe that is easily as distinct as other respected science fiction movies, like Star Wars. In fact, the universe is already better and more consistently defined than the universe in the Alien movies.

What keeps the movie rooted and interesting are the characters. Riddick is a convicted murderer who has in no way reformed, but his skills serve the greater good in The Chronicles Of Riddick and he makes for a compelling anti-hero. The morally ambiguous place created in this conflict allows the viewer to accept Kyra, a character who emulates Riddick so much that she has essentially become a murderer like Riddick while hunting for him. Kyra is tough, angry and skilled, making her an appropriate companion for Riddick - she is too like him to be a foil.

The villains are intriguing and while they are characterized as something different, they seem very human. The Necromongers are subject to infighting, as the Lord Marshal is hunted by his chief warrior, Vaako. Vaako is less an indoctrinated cult member and more a MacBeth with Dame Vaako as his Lady MacBeth whispering conspiracy in his ears. One of the most compelling of the villain's ranks is the Purifier whose allegiance is questionable and who possesses an integrity that is respectable, after a fashion.

The Chronicles Of Riddick is a very simple movie in terms of plot. Riddick is on the run, learns that Kyra has been hunting him and he tries to find her while avoiding the Necromongers, who also begin hunting him. This takes Riddick from Helion Prime to a fiery prison planet and back. The visual effects and battles are fairly impressive and fun to watch. The running gets tired, but it's necessary for the plot.

Generally, the acting is good. Colm Feore is wonderful and menacing as the Lord Marshal, Thandie Newton is brilliantly calculating as Dame Vaako. Judi Dench is wonderfully cast as Aereon, with her simple, quiet dignity. And Alexa Davalos is more than just a pretty face as Kyra. Davalos is tough and reminiscent of other strong women of science fiction, like Ripley and Buffy.

On DVD, each of the movies has a commentary track and multiple featurettes both on the story and the making of the movies. Again, there are no exclusive featurettes unique to this package and there is nothing missing from the earlier releases.

I'm not sure why the Riddick Trilogy has not been more popular. They are big, special effects films with a character who is surprisingly well-acted and works well for the role. And if Vin Diesel is unable to get the other two David Twohy movies made, then this three pack will be the ultimate one. Personally, I'd rather have to come back here and re-rate this than be robbed of the last two installments. If you buy this, odds are you'll come to feel the same!

For other science fiction or fantast film series', be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Back To The Future Trilogy
The Star Trek movies
Alien Quadrilogy

8/10

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

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

2012: A Very Average Film That’s Exactly What We Expected.

The Good: Amazing special effects
The Bad: Predictable plot and character elements.
The Basics: A big special effects film that does little that other disaster films have not already done, 2012 is a complete disappointment.


It is hard these days for me to get excited or even overly critical about some movies; they simply are That Type Of Movie. So, for example, when one is watching Volcano and a volcano erupts in a major urban center, it’s hard to get upset about it or take it seriously once one accepts the basic premise of the film. After catching a screening of 2012, I am feeling pretty much the same way about that film. This is not a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey or 2010: The Year We Make Contact, this is more like Roland Emmerich’s prior disaster flick, The Day After Tomorrow. As such, it is what it is, a big special-effects driven film that is predictably light on plot surprises or character development.

The thing is, even for the type of movie that it is, viewers are likely to feel somewhat cheated by 2012. For those who have seen even previews for The Day After Tomorrow and the movie poster for 2012, there are few surprises even with the quality of the special effects. 2012 features cutting-edge special effects and the disaster scenes of earthquakes, floods and raging fires are impressive, but that’s pretty much the movie is all about and the character elements are cliché and merely act as filler between tremendous special effects sequences. In other words, the emotional resonance one gets from watching the extended trailer is about all they are likely to get from the actual film and, truth be told, the best special effects shots are included in the trailer. If you've got a decent HDTV, you lose nothing by seeing this on Blu-Ray or DVD.

In the wake of suicides in Guatemala that draw mass attention to the Mayan prediction that the world will end on December 21, 2012, the top secret Institute For Human Continuity begins building massive subterranean shelters so that humanity will not be wiped out if the worst actually comes. Divorcee Jackson Curtis is visiting Yellowstone with his children where he meets Charlie Frost. Frost tells Jackson about the end of the world and when seismic events begin occurring, it appears he is correct and the Mayans may have called it right. So, Jackson and his son and daughter make a beeline back to Los Angeles in the attempt to get Jackson’s ex-wife, Kate and get to one of the secret arks.

What follows is a sequence of special effects shots where nature itself seems to be chasing the Curtis family with fire, floods and earthquakes. There’s a daring escape and . . . okay, I’m done with the plot recap. Usually, I try to do two paragraphs of plot recap, but I can’t even muster up the enthusiasm for it with this one. 2012 is another film absolutely ruined by the preview trailers as even the moments of harrowing escape were included in the trailer and, truth-be-told, by the time it comes up in the actual film I didn't care about Jackson, Kate, Noah, Lily (their kids) or any of the political officials who bother to keep going about their jobs as the end of the world comes.

And my hopes that 2012 would be one of those films that starts off as one type of film and then becomes something else did not pan out. Despite the idea of the Mayans correctly predicting the end of the world (and, ultimately, how they knew), there is little richness to the movie and so many elements were borrowed from The Day After Tomorrow as to make most of the film seem like a rehash of something we have seen before (even for those of us who only watched part of The Day After Tomorrow while substituting a high school class). The character elements in 2012 feel more canned, though and the film ultimately comes with no real moral or message.

As a result, 2012 does not have the emotional resonance it ought to have. Jackson Curtis is pretty much an everyman and his belief in Charlie’s dire predictions about the state of the world are supposed to be made more believable by the fact that Jackson is a science fiction writer. But in today’s world with thousands of science fiction fans, Jackson is very much the everyman and as a result, viewers are left feeling a lack of caring for him. Why should Jackson Curtis and his family be saved from the demise of the world? What makes him special and worth using to repopulate the species? The answer is, unfortunately, nothing. And this makes it hard to care about him.

As well, the whole idea of saving the population comes across as pathetically optimistic and here 2012 continues its trend as That Kind Of Movie. Unlike The Day After Tomorrow, which serves as a somewhat bloated cautionary tale about the environmental impact of man, 2012 is far less concrete. The end of the world is coming . . . some of humanity can be saved. This film is not going to get any government on Earth concerned enough to build something that would allow the planet to be evacuated. So, why, then, are Emmerich and co-writer Harald Kloser obsessed with trying to save humanity? This reminds me of a graphic novel I recently read, Batman R.I.P. (click here for my review) where readers were teased with the idea of the death of Batman. This is a great idea and readers care about it because they care about the character. When that is taken away from us, though, the reader feels cheated. Similarly, in 2012, because none of the characters in any way remarkable or special in any demonstrable way which makes us care about them, viewers looking for something truly new and different have to ask, “Where is the harm in killing everyone?” In other words, the emotional catharsis that could come from the creation of the arks and the protagonists making it to them only matters if one cares about the people getting saved. If they aren’t extraordinary, what’s the harm in making them fail?

Oh yeah, it’s That Kind Of Movie. The problem with 2012 is that it is obvious and we’ve seen it all before, in vastly more interesting ways. John Cusack gives us nothing that we haven’t seen before in his role of Jackson Curtis. The child actors in the movie are homogeneously bad as well and even Danny Glover seems a bit stiff as President Wilson (45, not 28!). Even Amanda Peet, who is usually one of my favorites, slumps through her role as the archetypal protective mother and left me wondering why she was attached to the project. And for those hoping Woody Harrelson’s performance might be worth seeing, Zombieland managed to trump his weird character quota for last year.

Even if 2012 is surprisingly mindless special effects action adventure tripe, well, it’s still tripe. The inability to care about any of the characters sinks this movie and while it no doubt won the box-office race the weekend it came out, it’s not because of the quality of the work. Anyone who wants to be at all surprised about this film ought not to watch the preview trailer or look up anything on the IMDB either as both reveal critical information about the storyline and “universe” of 2012.

For other apocalyptic scenario films, please check out my reviews of:
Repo Men
Battlefield Earth
Doomsday

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page!

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




| | |

When Perfection Is Neither Enjoyable Nor Entertaining: Crash Wonderfully Explores Difficult Issues.

The Good: Excellent acting, Great characters, Direction - Ability to evoke mood, Thematic unity without simplicity
The Bad: Minor pacing issues (very much not an issue after multiple viewings!)
The Basics: In a difficult film that forthrightly explores interethnic relations in Los Angeles, a variety of characters relate or disjoint based on prejudice or tolerance.


When I was in college, I was not into sports so I derived great joy and a little profit from betting on award shows. Ever since then, I have picked my winners each year for the major award shows and kept score. I have a ridiculously high average for correctness when my average is factored using my "who ought to win/who will win" ratio. There were a string of years for the Oscars when the "Best Picture" category was unredeemably bad (a stretch following American Beauty to when Return of the King won) and I was frequently disappointed by either the nominees or the winners. A few years back, I bet (no longer literally) on Crash for Best Picture over Brokeback Mountain based on nothing more than the cast list and the movie poster. When I finally watched Crash, (I had been holding out to watch the Director's Cut for my first viewing, but I finally broke down and watched the theatrical release) I was pleased to see a movie that legitimately deserved the Best Picture award.

Detective Graham Waters is having a terrible yesterday. Flashing back to yesterday from his arrival at a crime scene tonight, Waters walks through a day that is filled with political pressure, intrigue and altercations all based on ethnic differences. After making a crack at his Latina partner, discovering his mother on crack and his brother missing, Waters is pressured by the Internal Affairs Department and the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office to put away a white cop who shot and killed a black police officer.

In the same proximate area, the D.A. and his wife are carjacked by two young black hoods, who then accidentally run over a Chinese man, a record executive and his wife are pulled over while driving by a racist cop and his progressive partner, and a hispanic locksmith runs into a Persian store owner whose shop is ransacked and covered in hate speech. Over the course of two days, a collection of complex events collide various characters in circumstances that are ethnically motivated, challenged or utterly out of control.

Crash is the best, most difficult movie I have ever watched that I would like to add to my personal library. Unlike something like The House of Sand and Fog that is unrelentingly depressing and terrible to watch, Crash challenges the viewer. Yes, there is a thematical unity in Crash; EVERYTHING in this movie comes back to ethnicity. Every action and reaction in the film is motivated by a conscious awareness of differences in ethnicity and/or skin color.

But unlike many movies where there is thematic unity, Crash works because it refuses to simplify the problems, conflicts or characters. So, for example, Anthony goes on a tirade about how as a young black man in a very white neighborhood he ought to feel insecure and berates a white woman for getting nervous upon seeing him there, then he whips out a gun and steals her SUV. So, while everything is about ethnicity here, the movie both challenges and embodies some of the worst stereotypes and fears about ethnic differences, sometimes even within a single character.

Writer/director Paul Haggis makes it work and he does so by creating characters who are multifaceted. So, for example, racist Officer John Ryan would be an easy "type." He's a racist white cop in the LAPD. Talk about a stereotype. Haggis fleshes him out, though. Ryan's father is aging poorly and might have a serious illness that his HMO will not cover and in trying to relate to the workers at the HMO, who are people of color, he relates that his father was progressive, hiring minorities before it was required by law and he lost everything when the city changed the way it awarded contracts. Ryan wrongly blames people of color, but Haggis rightly makes the ethnic prejudice less monolithic.

And this is a drama in the highest sense of the word. Officer Hansen, for example, who offers the film some catharsis by rejecting the methods (and person) of Officer Ryan becomes something of a tragic figure when he tries to live up to his ideals. On the flip side, Jean comes to realize that her fear and hatred are irrational and Anthony's ideology puts him at odds with Cameron in a way that forces him to compromise.

This is a clever film, but it is not easy to watch. Not by a long shot. Early on in the movie, after being primed with a bit of speech that indicates this is a film that is going to deal a lot with ethnic issues, there is a grueling scene between Officer Ryan and Karen that is so difficult to watch it will make the viewer's stomach clench and ill. The movie is somewhat unrelenting, though there does come some catharsis. Though, even those are not simple.

Like Magnolia, there are a slew of characters who fade in and out of the movie, intersecting and crashing with one another. Most of them are given enough screentime for us to care about them and the picture works well for a film that has approximately twenty principle characters stuffed into 113 minutes.

And the acting is great. There is not a single character that is not believable portrayed. The top named stars like Sandra Bullock and Brendan Fraser are relegated to roles that do not dominate the story or the screentime, leaving lesser-known actors to shine. Jennifer Esposito gives a great supporting performance that almost instantly defines the tone of the movie. Terrence Howard portrays Cameron with a dignity that is perfect for his character.

Ryan Phillippe is great as Hansen adding subtlety with body language and eye movement in a role that could have easily devolved into a "type" as opposed to a character. Phillippe's facial expression following his ultimate character action is almost worth the price of admission to the film.

Matt Dillon is perfect as John Ryan. Dillon is creepy when appropriate, cold and mean when he is most brutal and strikes an amazing balance with humanity when forced to. Dillon wisely does not play any anger or frustration in scenes where Ryan is charged with aiding his ill father. And Dillon is utterly convincing in his portrayal of Ryan when resolving his conflict with Christine.

Chris Bridges, best known to the world as the rapper Ludacris is nothing short of amazing as Anthony. He is dynamic, articulate and delivers his lines perfectly. More than that, he embodies a character that is both educated and streetwise, carrying himself with a body language of a student and a thug alternately. Bridges has a flexibility that makes the viewer believe in the dynamics of his character.

But it is Don Cheadle who moves Crash. With the most screentime, Cheadle bears the brunt of the acting work as his character is the most consistent thread in this tapestry. Cheadle gives a performance that is consistent in the mellow tone his character portrays while encountering ingratitude, intrigue, relationship dysfunctions and problematic ethnic relations. Cheadle is emotive and believable and he is a pleasure to watch here.

Crash is a great drama that is a must-see, but it's hard to say who would enjoy watching it. It's not an enjoyable or entertaining film to watch. But it is important. It's important to watch and it's important to talk about afterward.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, which is available by clicking here! Please check it out!

For other movies with an emphasis on social conflict, please check out my reviews of:
Strawberry And Chocolate
Memoirs Of A Geisha
Easy A

10/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |