Not The Amazing Anti-Meat Argument One Might Hope For: Okja Reminds Us To Not Name Our Steaks.

The Good: Decent CG effects, Seo-Hyun Ahn acts like a pro opposite the effects, Generally good acting
The Bad: Painfully obvious themes, Simplistic plot, Unlikable characters
The Basics: Okja painfully blurs the lines between making a statement on the condition of the meat processing industry, animal rights activism, and the perils of making a food animal into a pet.


When it comes to Netflix Original Films, there have been none that have had the press momentum prior to their release like Okja. Okja, streaming today, has one of the most acclaimed casts yet for a Netflix film - Tilda Swinton, Giancarlo Esposito, and Jake Gyllenhaal being the most recognizable to American audiences - and was originally debuted at the Cannes Film Festival where it garnered a lot of positive press. Before sitting down to Okja, all I knew about the film was that Steven Yeun of The Walking Dead was in the movie and my wife warned me that, having recently lost our beloved Siberian Husky Myah, the film might be a little depressing for me.

Okja is the latest film in a fairly recent trend of movies that try to expose the conditions under which our food is made. Unlike something like Fast Food Nation (reviewed here!), which focuses on the United States and casts a wide net over the industry, Okja tells a far more intimate story. Okja almost instantly illustrates why most of us have different animals for food than we do for pets.

Opening in 2007, in New York City, Lucy Mirando takes over the powerful multinational Mirando company. Under her leadership, the new super pig that was born and reproduced in one of her holdings is being developed for future consumption. The twenty-five super pigs are shipped to different parts of the world for a ten-year competition to see which one will grow into the largest and most delicious super pig in the world. Ten years later in Korea, Mija lives with her grandfather in the hills, spending her days running around playing with her massive super pig, Okja. With the competition rushing to a close, Mija's grandfather lies to her and tells her he has bought Okja, but when a film crew comes to their home to see Okja, the truth comes comes out and Okja is taken away.

With Okja having been abducted to Seoul before her journey to New York City for the final portion of the competition, Mija runs away from home to rescue her beloved companion. Mija makes it to the Mirando offices in Seoul just in time to see Okja being taken away by truck. Mija manages to run and jump onto the truck transporting Okja, when animal rights activists smash into the truck and Okja is freed. Okja runs through Seoul wreaking havoc before she and Mija are rescued by the Animal Liberation Front activists. The leader of the ALF, Jay, tells Mija about the truth about Mirando's laboratories and he tells her that the ALF's plan is to use Okja as a spy in Mirando's laboratories. K, however, lies to Mija and Okja is taken to New York with the spy technology needed to expose Mirando.

Okja is being hailed as a masterpiece of animal rights, with viewers lauding it for illustrating just how horribly we treat animals in the food processing industry. Okja does not actually do that with any effectiveness. Instead, it simply makes painfully explicit why most people do not raise pets for food. There is a disconnect between food and pets; most people wouldn't eat meat if they got to know their food animals in advance of their slaughter. So, while Okja is being hailed as brilliant and a masterpiece, it plays out much more like a "simple problem, simple solution." In today's society, in our modern world, if one ants to be able to enjoy a hamburger, it helps not to spend time on the killing floor of a slaughter house. It is easy enough to avoid the entire thematic conflict presented in Okja.

Okja takes the stance that using animals for food is inherently and entirely wrong. For sure, in the real world, the meat industry is problematically regulated and slaughterhouse conditions are not ideal for humans or the animals slaughtered there. The Animal Liberation Front takes an extreme view about animal rights and when Jay details the ALF agenda, it is hard to take him seriously as a reliable narrator. Okja does not satisfactorily explain how the ALF got reliable intelligence on the Mirando Corporation, so it is easy to write off Jay's claims initially as the crackpot theories of extremists.

Lucy Mirando certainly appears - in closed-door meetings - as fairly idealistic and ethical, which helps to undermine the idea that Jay is a credible narrator. Lucy is clearly being manipulated by the more corporately-inclined Dawson, but for much of the film, Lucy is not presented as an actual or credible villain.

The performances in Okja are all good. Jake Gyllenhaal is virtually unrecognizable as the Mirando media presence, Johnny Wilcox. Paul Dano, Lily Collins and Steven Yeun are all credible in their intense performances of animal rights activists. All of the animal rights activist performers are great in their reaction shots throughout Okja. Tilda Swinton is her usual wonderful self as Lucy Mirando. Swinton gives viewers something new at the film's climax where she does a spot-on Jane Lynch impersonation. Shirley Henderson seems to be playing the same type character she did on Doctor Who and Harry Potter and Seo-Hyun Ahn does fine playing a little girl in love with her pet.

The direction in Okja is good.

Unfortunately, in addition to having a simple conflict with a simple solution, Okja is riddled with continuity problems. Most significant is that during the ALF's abduction of Okja, Jay has to speak through Kay for Mija to understand. Mija does not understand English initially, so Kay translates. But much of the scene has Jay speaking without Kay translating any to Mija. In a similar fashion, the suspension of disbelief in Okja is strained beyond the breaking point when Johnny Wilcox has access to the breeding area and behind-the-scenes laboratory area of the Mirando Corporation. That's simply not a location a figurehead or public face for the company would traditionally have access to and the scene - while monstrous - stands out as troubling in an unrealistic way.

Ultimately, Okja is a new presentation of the same arguments Fast Food Nation made a decade ago, that Vegans make every day and that omnivores with a strong "ignorance is bliss" lifestyle maintain in order to enjoy their burgers, chicken nuggets, and dolphin-safe tuna. And yes, I get it, humans are terrible. But so is Okja.

For other Netflix exclusive films, please check out my reviews of:
Shimmer Lake
War Machine
Girlfriend's Day
Take The 10
Clinical
Barry
Spectral
True Memoirs Of An International Assassin
I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
Special Correspondents
The Fundamentals Of Caring
The Ridiculous 6

3/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Netflix Competes In Summer Blockbuster Season With War Machine!

The Good: Great commentary, Wonderful performances, Some very funny lines, Good casting
The Bad: Pacing, Repetitive use of satire, Mood
The Basics: War Machine is a good idea with some very funny lines and decent performances, but it hits the same note far too often and drags entirely through its second act.


Summer Blockbuster Season has officially arrived and arguably the biggest surprise of it so far is that Brad Pitt is headlining a film that is intended to get viewers to stay away from the movie theaters. Instead of participating in a massive special effects-driven film that is intended to make huge bank at the box office, Brad Pitt is participating in a comedy film that is now out exclusively on Netflix. The film is War Machine and while theatergoers are competing for tickets and seats for the latest Pirates Of The Caribbean film and the Baywatch theatrical release, Pitt is encouraging viewers to stay home, get comfortable and take in some satire.

War Machine is a comedy about the U.S. military and it was strategically-released for Memorial Day Weekend. Had it been released in theaters, War Machine would have been an R-rated comedy, mostly for language. War Machine, like most military films, has a lot of swearing and the "adult themes" are ironic statements on the failures of policy, personality and strategy in a mismanaged war zone. Right off the bat, War Machine is very well-written and it is often quite funny.

Eight years into the War in Afghanistan, President Obama wants to get the war done. To that end, the General leading the coalition forces in Afghanistan is replaced by the determined General Glen McMahon. McMahon and his staff are brought in to do an assessment that will inform the President on what is needed to win the war - not more troops! After meeting with President Karzai and recognizing that he will get no more help from the infrastructure in Afghanistan, McMahon tours Afghanistan. After his tour, McMahon is told that Helmand province is unsecurable, so he sets his attentions to winning over the hearts and minds in Helmand.

McMahon asks the U.S. government for 40,000 more troops to secure Helmand and is told he cannot have them until the Afghan elections are over. When he learns about the bad conditions at the U.S. position codenamed Sasquatch, McMahon accompanies his troops out into the field. McMahon hires Badi Basim to represent Afghans in his new attempt at a regime. When the election results only confirm Karzai as Afghanistan's President, McMahon leaks his own report to try to get traction and public support in the U.S. about the war.

War Machine does an excellent job of making commentary on exactly what fails in a "nation-building" military conflict. The film details well how an insurgency is virtually impossible to defeat. War Machine is very well-written in that it explores incredibly well the rhetorical difficulties with attempting to win hearts and minds when you're armed and have no clear mission.

The satire in War Machine is appropriately dry and very funny, usually in a very off-putting way. Brad Pitt leads War Machine is a great series of incredibly dry deliveries paired with a very stiff and often-ridiculous physical performance. Pitt squints with one eye through almost his entire time on screen, while keeping his other eye very wide. Pitt's stiff back and gorilla arms help to define McMahon as much as his scowl and frown.

War Machine has brilliant casting and the cast is very well used. Anthony Michael Hall creates arguably his most abrasive character ever as McMahon's right hand man, Greg Pulver. Casting Sir Ben Kingsley as President Karzai is genius and Alan Ruck is credible as Pat McKinnon, the pragmatic government foil for McMahon. Topher Grace uses his brief time on screen to deliver very funny lines and Tilda Swinton creates yet another wonderful character, even though she is not in War Machine long. In War Machine, Scoot McNairy proves that his future in voice acting is secure for each and every position David Duchovny passes on.

War Machine is an unfortunately erratic film. While the opening narration in War Machine draws the viewer in, by the time writer Sean Cullen enters the narrative as a character doing a Rolling Stone profile on McMahon, the pace of the film is virtually at a dead stop. The essential joke of War Machine is that a hapless general is put in charge of a war zone where he cannot win using his military training; that punchline is delivered multiple times within the first ten minutes of the film. By the hour mark, War Machine struggles to say anything new.

That, sadly, is the death knell of War Machine; Netflix and Brad Pitt took a big, important risk on a film that had something to say and the statement is made with hilarity very quickly. The film's social commentary is also made exceptionally quickly and reiterated many, man times in War Machine. As War Machine trudges toward its inevitable end, the joke is beaten to death and the humor, ultimately, falls unfortunately flat.

For other Netflix exclusive films, please check out my reviews of:
Girlfriend's Day
Take The 10
Clinical
Barry
Spectral
True Memoirs Of An International Assassin
I Am The Pretty Thing That Lives In The House
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
Special Correspondents
The Fundamentals Of Caring
The Ridiculous 6

4/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Trippy And Engaging, Doctor Strange Is One Of Marvel Studios Best Films!

The Good: Decent performances, Engaging characters, Amazing effects, Good plot progression
The Bad: Less-developed supporting characters/villain, Creates some weird continuity issues with the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe
The Basics: Doctor Strange is one of the most impressive Marvel Cinematic Universe films, but it still has a few objective shortcomings that force the viewer to accept conceits over a concrete story.


One of the true joys of the current phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is that characters who have not appeared in volumes that I have read of the Marvel Comics source material are getting focused upon in the films. While Doctor Strange is apparently an incredibly popular and enduring character from Marvel Comics, when my wife turned to me during our viewing of Doctor Strange and asked, "Is that how magic is represented in the books?" I was suddenly forced to admit, "I have absolutely no clue!" There is something very refreshing about going into a Marvel Studios film with no preconceptions of what the film ought to be.

Being so unfettered by expectations at the outset, it was very easy to watch Doctor Strange as an objective viewer. Indeed, as one who is not overly wowed by spectacle, the early hype for the film being the Marvel Cinematic Universe version of Inception (reviewed here!) only made me wary of Doctor Strange. Fortunately, Doctor Strange manages to be its own entity and when it fails to do that, it is derivative of other Marvel Cinematic Universe films (and, oddly, Green Lantern, reviewed here!), not Inception.

A library filled with magical tomes is attacked by Kaecilius and his followers and while he is forced to retreat when The Ancient One appears, he manages to escape with a handful of key pages from an important volume in the library and his followers behead the librarian. In America, Doctor Stephen Strange is an acclaimed neurosurgeon who works in the same hospital as Christine Palmer, a doctor he once dated. After saving the life of a person who was shot and appeared dead to another doctor, Strange is headed to a speaking engagement when he gets in a horrible car accident. He awakens to discover that his hands have been almost completely destroyed and after several surgeries, he is still unable to reliably hold tools, much less do delicate work with them needed to continue to be a neurosurgeon. His physical therapist tells him about Jonathan Pangborn, a man once confined to a wheelchair who now not only walks, but is playing basketball when Strange tracks him down. Pangborn tells Stephen Strange about Kamar-Taj, a place he want in Nepal where he learned the mystic arts and recovered the use of his legs. So, Strange spends the last of his money to go there.

Rescued off the streets of Nepal by Mordo, Stephen Strange is taken to Kamar-Taj where he is introduced to The Ancient One. The Ancient One initially rejects teaching Strange how to overcome his injuries because he is arrogant and bound by a very literal, scientific view. But, after having some out-of-body, trans-dimensional and teleportation experiences, Stephen Strange throws himself into the study of the magical arts. While Mordo takes Strange under his wing, the new librarian, Wong, is more annoyed by the newcomer. But Wong tells Dr. Strange about Kaecilius and the book that Kaecilius desecrated. In exploring the magical artifacts of Kamar-Taj and learning about the three magical centers on Earth that are protecting the planet from transdimensional attacks, Doctor Strange develops his ability and learns of the true threat that Kaecilius, as a devotee of the dark lord Dormammu, represents. As Kaecilius attempts to pull Earth into the dark dimension ruled by Dormammu, Strange, The Ancient One, Wong, and Mordo must stop them!

Doctor Strange officially brings the supernatural into the Marvel Cinematic Universe in a way that plays lip service to the supernatural being a different form of science (which is how Thor described his abilities to Jane). As one still watching Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D., there was momentary delight in noticing that one book was missing in the library's chained section (presumably the Dark Hold, which has appeared on the television series!), but while Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. has been belaboring explaining what the Dark Hold contains, Doctor Strange asks viewers to accept its premise, rather than spending a ton of time explaining it. So, while Strange questions such things as being able to read what The Ancient One describes as the source code of the universe and he accurately points out that reading about it would still leave him waving his hands in the air with nothing happening, Doctor Strange quickly transitions into the Doctor opening portals with ease in the library of Kamar-Taj.

Despite the abruptness of the development of his skills (personally, I think it would have been interesting to being Stephen Strange's narrative earlier and illustrate him studying intensively for his medical degrees to play off how he applies himself to learn the mystical arts later), Doctor Stephen Strange develops in a surprisingly compelling way over the course of Doctor Strange. Strange is smart enough to make his abilities seem plausible once he gives up his preconceptions of what he has been trained to accept. Strange learns fast, questions a lot and retains an ethical core that makes him rightly heroic, without being stale to watch.

The Ancient One is compelling and well-embodied by Tilda Swinton and she is a delight in each scene she is in. While Rachel McAdams does fine as Christine Palmer, she is not given enough to do to make the viewer feel that Palmer is a well-rounded and compelling character. That is a bit of a disappointment, as the Marvel Cinematic Universe did something similar already with Natalie Portman's character in the Thor corner of the universe. In a similar way, Mads Mikkelsen does an adequate job of playing Kaecilius, but the more one considers his character, the less satisfying (and more generic) his role is in Doctor Strange. Kaecilius is looking to tap into power from the dark realm controlled by Dormammu based on a nebulous trauma that brought him to The Ancient One in the past. Doctor Strange does a poor job of selling that idea that only Dormammu has the power to prolong life, that a traumatized guy like Kaecilius would want to live as an immortal instead of either rewrite time or be put out of his misery, and/or that Dormammu would want to share any of his powers with Kaecilius.

Without knowing any of the source material, the post-credit defection of one of the film's main characters seemed both abrupt and sloppy. As well, it was one of the few derivative elements in Doctor Strange. For those who saw Green Lantern and enjoyed it, one of the enduring issues with the film was that Sinestro made a compelling argument that the Guardians ought to fight Parallax with the power it drew upon; fear. The post-credit sequence of Green Lantern had, after all of the conflict had passed, Sinestro making the transition into a Yellow Lantern with no context, no threat, and an entirely inorganic sense of character motion based on where the film had left him. In a virtually identical way, the second post-credit scene to Doctor Strange does a lot to completely undermine and redefine one of the most likable characters in the movie.

That said, Doctor Strange has a lot going for it. Stephen Strange is an interesting character . . . even if his incredible skill makes viewers who love the Marvel Cinematic Universe films ask "If he is such a gifted neurosurgeon, why didn't Tony Stark call upon him to remove the shrapnel menacing his heart right after Iron Man?!" Strange is snarky, brilliant and has a wit that makes his love of trivia seem more playful than annoying. Stephen Strange is one of Benedict Cumberbatch's best roles. Perhaps the highest compliment one might pay about Cumberbatch is that, despite there being numerous similarities between Stephen Strange and Cumberbatch's rendition of Sherlock Holmes, one never feels like they are watching Cumberbatch play his Sherlock character in Doctor Strange.

The rest of the cast does great work supporting the protagonist's journey. Rachel McAdams plays surprise, shock, and the remnants of love well for Palmer, Tilda Swinton is both mysterious and convincing as The Ancient One. Mads Mikkelsen is off to a good start for the final Quarter of 2016 as Kaecilius and both Benedict Wong and Chiwetel Ejiofor make their supporting sorcerer roles memorable; far more than guys delivering excessive exposition.

And director Scott Derrickson makes Doctor Strange look suitably amazing and he moves the film at a pace that keeps it engaging the entire run. The result is an overwhelmingly satisfying Marvel Cinematic Universe film that gets great work out of its principles and turns the franchise in a very different, but mostly incredible and enjoyable, direction.

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Oasis: Supersonic
The Accountant
My Blind Brother
Cardboard Boxer
The Whole Truth

8.5/10

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

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

Catching Up With Wes Anderson In His Delightful Moonrise Kingdom!

The Good: Decent performances, Interesting characters, Good direction
The Bad: Simplistic plot, Light on character development
The Basics: I finally take in Moonrise Kingdom, which moved Wes Anderson out of his repetitive slump!


Over the years, I have inadvertently become a fan of the works of a couple of different writer/directors. Unlike the most literal fans ("fanatics"), I have retained the ability to be discriminatory about the works of even my favorite writer/directors. So, I do not universally praise the works of Terry Gilliam, P.T. Anderson or The Wachowski Siblings. Each has had films that are brilliant and some that are downright unwatchable. Because I started my appreciation of the works of Wes Anderson with The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!), I hardly suspected he would become one of my favorite writer/directors. The Royal Tenenbaums is brilliant, but his follow-ups The Life Acquatic With Steve Zissou (reviewed here!) and The Darjeeling Limited (reviewed here!) were essentially rehashings of that film in mood and cast (and, even, direction).

With his latest film reinvigorating my love of his works, I have been eagerly going back to some of the Wes Anderson films I missed after I more or less gave up on him. After watching Moonrise Kingdom, I wish I had gone back sooner! Moonrise Kingdom is almost everything one has come to love and expect from a Wes Anderson film. The movie is packed with awkward moments, somewhat off-putting characters, actors being used in quirky ways and (to a lesser extent) impressive direction with an emphasis on the use of color. Moonrise Kingdom might not have the familiar sense of visual style one expects from a Wes Anderson film - after the opening credits sequence that is - but narratively, it is very much a typical Wes Anderson film . . . without feeling like the writer/director is simply rehashing his prior works.

In the summer of 1965, on the New England island of New Penzance is days away from being hit by a significant storm, the residents are shocked by two young people running away. The New Penzance Khaki Scout camp is put in an uproar when the least-liked camper, orphan Sam, abruptly resigns from the Scouts and runs off. Miles away, Suzy Bishop abandons her lawyer parents and three younger brothers to meet Sam and run away with him.

After an explanation of how Sam and Suzy met the year prior at the Island's church play and they became pen pals, the film follows the story of where the two children run off to and the attempts by both the Khaki Scouts and the island police to recover the children. Sam is pursued by his fellow Khaki Scouts, Scout Master Ward (who is dismayed when Sam's foster family does not want him back) and Captain Sharp, the dim police officer who has a lingering affection for Mrs. Bishop. Mr. and Mrs. Bishop are pretty much estranged and not really in love - their pillow talk is about their respective caseloads - have Sharp hunting their Suzy. Sam and Suzy defend themselves from the Khaki Scout troop and make it to an inlet where they spend a romantic night before they are captured the next morning. But when one of the Khaki Scouts realizes they troop has been cruel to Sam without cause, the kids decide to spring the young lovers and give them a chance at happiness.

Moonrise Kingdom has, from its outset, the potential to be virtually any kind of movie. The title and opening set the film up for a potential cinematic reworking of Bridge To Terabithia. The longer the film went on, the more I had hopes that the movie would be about the two kids and their falling in love and creating their own little paradise at the inlet. That hope, however, got quickly shattered with the capture of Suzy and Sam and the emphasis on keeping Moonrise Kingdom a classic chase story.

Because of its emphasis on plot and the reversals that naturally come from having a chase story, the characters in Moonrise Kingdom hardly grow or develop. Instead, Sam and Suzy grow to accept one another and share an intriguing first love that is based a lot on simply accepting the other for who they are. But most of their time is spent simply running and having four or five scenes where they simply talk. Many of those scenes are not about sharing common interests, they are about fleshing out each character. The chase gives Sam and Suzy shared conflict, but it does little to actually bond them more (they are about as affectionate with one another at the outset as they are at the end).

As always, Wes Anderson does an exceptional job with the film's casting of a decent blend of established actors and some new talents. Sam is played by Jared Gilman and Kara Hayward erupts on screen as Suzy, with a stare that could melt glass. Beyond that, one is almost surprised Wes Anderson films require a casting manager; Anderson tends to use several actors in virtually all of his works and Bill Murray, Tilda Swinton, and Jason Schwartzman all make appearances in Moonrise Kingdom. Bruce Willis is utilized well in Moonrise Kingdom as Captain Sharp. Given how Willis can play calculating and able exceptionally well, watching him as a character who is a virtual moron is a feat!

The film is ruled by Gilman and Hayward and while their characters are hardly connected by deep and binding character traits, the performers have great, if awkward, on-screen chemistry! Gilman and Hayward have great stares and their characters share intensity that they play incredibly well.

But, Moonrise Kingdom sticks with a chase caper more than a heartfelt exploration of young love and that diminishes the magic of the film. While Wes Anderson does an excellent job of making an engaging story, the viewer is left feeling like the movie had so much more potential than was executed.

For other works with Frances McDormand, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Burn After Reading
Friends With Money
Aeon Flux
Something's Gotta Give
City By The Sea
Almost Famous
Wonder Boys
Fargo
Miller’s Crossing

6.5/10

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

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

Wes Anderson Creates The Best Slapstick Comedy Of All Time With The Grand Budapest Hotel!

The Good: Very funny, Wonderful acting, Engaging plot and characters, Impressive direction
The Bad: Needlessly complicated narrative technique, A number of the characters do not get developed due to the size of the cast
The Basics: Rightfully being called one of the best films of 2014, The Grand Budapest Hotel restores the reputation of Wes Anderson by creating an entertaining and enduring film!


When The Grand Budapest Hotel started to rack up award nominations this award’s season, I had the distinct feeling that the film was being treated as something of a “lifetime achievement award” for writer-director Wes Anderson. After all, Wes Anderson has made some masterful films, but after peaking with The Royal Tenenbaums (reviewed here!), the argument can be pretty easily made that he has simply been rehashing and reworking that movie for at least his two subsequent works - The Life Aquatic Of With Steve Zissou (reviewed here!) and The Darjeeling Limited (reviewed here!). The only Wes Anderson film I have not seen is Moonrise Kingdom and my failure to give it attention was the result of disillusionment following his post-The Royal Tenenbaums films.

So, my expectations were low when I sat down to watch The Grand Budapest Hotel. In fact, my viewing The Grand Budapest Hotel was more an obligatory viewing due to my desire to watch all of the Best Picture Oscar nominees this year. So, when I come out singing the praises of The Grand Budapest Hotel and director Wes Anderson, it is because the film is truly that good. With Anderson’s distinctive sense of style and color and a cast made up mostly of alumni from his prior works, Anderson was given the seemingly daunting task of creating something new and memorable with The Grand Budapest Hotel. He, and his cast and production team, succeeded.

An author sits down and tells the story of his younger self having the story of Zubrowska’s famed Grand Budapest Hotel narrated to him. Moustafa tells the story of how, as a boy, he was a Lobby Boy at the Grand Budapest Hotel during the turbulent time when it was switching owners. The young Lobby Boy Zero befriends the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel, M. Gustave. Gustave is a smart, efficient man who has been bedding the exceptionally wealthy Madame D. Madame D. dies abruptly and Gustave goes to her estate where he is surprisingly willed the famous painting Boy With Apple.

The priceless painting is coveted by Madame D.’s sons Dimitri and Jopling, as well as her three daughters. Gustave is framed by one of Madame D.’s servants as the man who killed Madame D. and he begins his run from the law. Unfortunately, he runs pretty much right away into the arms of Inspector Henckels, who has Gustave imprisoned. Gustave must rely upon the efforts of Zero to rescue him so they can sell the painting and live their lives. But Jopling is a homicidal maniac intent upon finding Gustave and his hunt starts to cut a swath of death through Zubrowska toward Gustave, Zero, and Zero’s fiancé, Agatha.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially a screwball comedy and Wes Anderson goes to great lengths to give the film a retro feel and sense of melodrama. What makes The Grand Budapest Hotel work so well is that Anderson mixes things like special effect “skips” and exaggerated movements with more contemporary color palates and incredible performances by some of the best actors working today. With such an extensive cast, Anderson is unable to use them all well; Tom Wilkinson’s part in The Grand Budapest Hotel is essentially a cameo where he is not given the chance to plumb his performing depths. Similarly, Jude Law’s performance as the younger version of Wilkinson’s author character only has him on screen long enough to get the viewer into the narrative of M. Gustave and Zero, as opposed to forcing him to play anything impressive.

The story of The Grand Budapest Hotel is an engaging chase story that feels classic, but has a contemporary level of dialogue. Ralph Fiennes swears his way through The Grand Budapest Hotel and Willem Dafoe’s psychopathic Jopling is chilling in a way that early films would not have dared. In the chase, Gustave becomes a likable protagonist, as does Zero. Zero is given enough backstory to make him compelling – even if the love story of Zero and Agatha is somewhat contrived (it plays into a line about A to Z) and simple.

The performances in The Grand Budapest Hotel are appropriately exceptional. Jeff Goldblum is virtually unrecognizable as the lawyer Kovacs and Adrien Brody is similarly chameleonic as Dmitri. Tilda Swinton’s brief appearance on screen proves that The Grand Budapest Hotel should win a bevy of make-up awards. Even Saoirse Ronan gives a career high performance – her time on screen shows more range and genuine emotion than she did in the entirety of The Host (reviewed here!).

The surprise is how well Tony Revolori plays off Ralph Fiennes. Revolori is given a part that could easily be relegated to hapless sidekick, but in key moments, he steels his eyes and holds his own on screen with Fiennes. Revolori has on-screen panache that makes Zero distinct and the logical antecedent to F. Murray Abraham’s incarnation of the character.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is one of the few films in recent memory that ought to be seen and experienced as opposed to discussed. It is funny, stylish and original enough to decimate any assertion that its nominations are more for Anderson and his body of work than this specific film!

For other films with intriguing narrative techniques, please visit my reviews of:
Stranger Than Fiction
Memento
Adaptation.

9/10

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

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

The Search For The Zero Theorem Results In . . . Well, Nothing, Really.

The Good: Excellent direction, Good concept, Decent performances
The Bad: Convoluted (lack of) plot, Protagonist never becomes likable or interesting enough to care about, Minutia
The Basics: Terry Gilliam’s film The Zero Theorem is complicated and cluttered and fails to create a film with essential Gilliam characters.


For the past year, since I learned of the film’s existence, the movie I have wanted most to see is The Zero Theorem. Terry Gilliam’s The Zero Theorem was completed late last year and its release has been peppered around the world and in the U.S. in film festivals. It is not getting a wide release in the U.S. and now that it is in limited release, I’ve managed to see it as part of my wife’s early birthday celebration to me. Fortunately, The Zero Theorem is better than the last film I greatly anticipated and was able to see as a birthday gift from her, The Master (reviewed here!). Even so, The Zero Theorem is not the masterwork I hoped it would be from Terry Gilliam who has created my two favorite films of all time Brazil (reviewed here!) and The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus (reviewed here!).

While The Zero Theorem has been compared to Brazil by a number of reviewers, but I am not going to be one of them. Having watched The Zero Theorem twice now, I think the essential difference between the two films is in the level of character the two films portray. While both movies feature dystopian, Orwellian-style oppressive futures where people are worked to death, Brazil has interesting, likable, quirky characters who have a base of realism to them. Brazil is led by a protagonist who could be anyone living in an oppressively capitalist country, coming alive enough to reclaim his own sense of soul and self. The Zero Theorem is far more esoteric and the protagonist fails to have a connectable quality.

Qohen Leth works for Mancom, a giant company that seems to be involved with programming everything in the world of the near-future. Leth lives in an abandoned church and is petitioning Mancom to get put on disability so he can work from home, instead of being forced to go into Mancom’s offices each day and work on his own next to others working alone. Qohen has been waiting his entire life for a specific telephone call, so working from home is ideal for him and he is disappointed when the company’s doctors will not approve his request. Leth’s supervisor, Joby, invites him to a party where Qohen is able to meet with the mysterious head of Mancom, Management. Management makes an exception to the company’s doctors’ recommendation and sends Qohen home the next day, with the intent that he will work on their Zero Theorem project. In his house, Qohen starts working on plugging random figures into an insanely complex creation with the intent of getting zero in the equation to reach 100%.

Monitored by Management, Leth’s efforts to get zero to 100% show almost no progress. To try to shake things up, Management hires Bainsley, a virtual-reality prostitute (she strips online and only allows “clients” to have contact with her through virtual-reality bodysuits so she does not actually have sex with them) to try to make a connection with Leth. After Leth’s frustration with the project reaches a new high and he crushes his equipment, Management’s son, Bob, comes to Leth’s house to repair the equipment. Bob’s presence aids Leth in both the work on the Zero Theorem and in his personal life. Exposing Management’s plan as a form of control over Leth and revealing everyone under the influence of Management to be tools of Management’s machinations, Bob draws Leth away from his virtual world and back into the real world.

Much of The Zero Theorem is devoted to creating mood and embellishing the setting of Terry Gilliam’s near-future. Unfortunately for viewers, the hyperbolic setting of The Zero Theorem is chaotic to the point of being entirely overbearing. Qohen Leth’s world is not supposed to be an inviting vision of the future, but we get that almost immediately in The Zero Theorem. After leaving his burnt-out, graffiti-covered church home, Qohen Leth steps out into a world where everyone is self-absorbed and plugged into personal electronic devices. To combat that, the city is packed with advertisements that chase down citizens as they try to move around. The setting is big, obvious, oppressive . . . and Gilliam beats the viewer to death with it. Unfortunately, Gilliam seems to be under the impression that his viewers are not particularly attentive: the first time Leth is out in the city, one of the news crawls on the wall has a story of a six inch gap in the train tracks being filled with ice cream; after months of working from home, Leth goes back out and the news feed has the same story!

The attention to setting and creating a visually-impressive film preoccupies Gilliam past the point of reason or sensibility in The Zero Theorem. I “get” what Qohen Leth is working on and how he is going his work. Unlike Pi (reviewed here!) where the film is so esoteric that only a mathematician is able to understand even a fraction of what is going on with the work being pursued, Gilliam does not get obsessed with the minutiae in The Zero Theorem. But in not presenting the actual work on the Zero Theorem in a rational way on Management’s work, Gilliam creates a concept that only works as a cinematic visual effect. Qohen Leth uses an interface that is very much like a video game; his work on the Zero Theorem is presented much like a three-dimensional game of Tetris. Leth shoots blocks that represent mathematical elements to create factor cubes and then he plugs those cubes into the immense equation that represents the larger Zero Theorem. Sometimes, that moves the equation forward, other times it causes the collapse of previously-established structures in the equation. This is an intriguing visual representation of pursuing a mathematical proof; the new information disproves a previously-assumed component of the equation. We get it.

The problem with The Zero Theorem is that Qohen Leth does not seem to have any form of intellectual or creative drive to actually work on the equation. Leth seems to randomly create the blocks and plugs them into the equation with equal randomness. To understand the problem, look at this review. Seriously, the form mirrors the evaluation; trying to describe the setting takes up so much space, but finding space to discuss how Qohen Leth interacts with it is pretty much a non-starter. Qohen Leth is like a random element in The Zero Theorem; he is a product of the setting, but does not actually do much of anything in that setting. Leth’s work is random and nonsensical in a world where technology is overbearing. Given the randomness of the interface for the work that Leth is working on, it seems like a computer program would actually be able to make sense of the work faster and better than any person (i.e. the only way the computer program could work, rationally, is by being programmed with elements and any possible combination of those elements that would be combined to form the factors for the larger equation and then plugged into the equation could be formed faster and in infinite combinations by the computer once the smallest building blocks were entered into the interface).

So, complex and pointless, but visually impressive; that’s the bulk of The Zero Theorem. What saves The Zero Theorem, even if it took me multiple viewings of the film to get there, is the acting and the (eventual) character development. Qohen Leth is pushed into the world, out of his simple, focused, world in front of the computer monitor. He interacts virtually and in the real world with Bainsley and Bob and that does make Leth evolve. He stops using the first person plural and he actually becomes invested in trying to solve the Zero Theorem. Leth accepts that he has been a tool, but he seems to genuinely want to get zero closer to 100% (even if the methods used are somewhat nonsensical).

Outside his role in The Green Hornet (reviewed here!), I had never seen Christoph Waltz in anything. In The Zero Theorem, he plays an uptight, reclusive, and entirely off-putting computer programmer and he does it exceptionally well. Waltz is difficult to watch as Qohen Leth, but part of that is because Waltz is able to so completely and realistically bury his humanity to make the character come alive. As Leth develops, Waltz plays off Lucas Hedges’s Bob brilliantly. Hedges brings youth and exuberance to the role of Bob and the more he and Waltz interact, the more Waltz infuses Leth with subtle eye movements and facial expressions that make Leth more relatable and human. Waltz slowly infuses Leth with soul and that makes for a memorable and complex performance.

Similarly, Melanie Thierry plays Bainsley as a seemingly generic sex object, but is able to completely sell the moment Bainsley develops more. Thierry and Lucas Hedges have great on-screen chemistry with Waltz. Tilda Swinton and Matt Damon have wonderful supporting roles in The Zero Theorem as the computer-generated therapist and Management, respectively. Swinton’s part is reminiscent of Ricardo Montalban’s portrayal of Khan in Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (reviewed here!); the way Swinton interacts with Waltz is so convincing one never thinks about how Swinton and Waltz are never in the same room together.

The Zero Theorem asks viewers to invest a lot to get to a point that is not as satisfying as a lobotomized rebel, but the journey is clever-enough to be watchable. Terry Gilliam created a mess with The Zero Theorem, but he populated it with exceptional performers playing at the top of their game and a visual sensibility that is incredible, if overwhelming and it’s still better than Tideland (reviewed here!)!

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
10,000 Days
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Interstellar
Hit By Lightning
Horns
John Wick
Listen Up Philip
The Best Of Me
The Judge
Dracula Untold
The Equalizer
The Maze Runner
This Is Where I Leave You
The Giver
Guardians Of The Galaxy
Life Of Crime

7.5/10

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

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

Class Warfare In The Face Of Human Extinction: Why Snowpiercer Is Worth Watching!

The Good: Interesting plot, Great effects (costume design, sets, make-up), Engaging characters
The Bad: Suspension of disbelief issues, I’m not wild about the shaky-cam stuff.
The Basics: In a dark, but not unpleasant-to-watch, story of human rebellion, Snowpiercer chronicles a future freedom fight that pits poor people on a train against their elitist oppressors.


We are finally to a point where the vast majority of the world acknowledges the real and growing dangers presented by global warming in the Earth’s climate, so (arguably) the last thing we need to fuel the remaining naysayers is a film that illustrates catastrophic consequences of trying to fix that problem. And yet, the new film Snowpiercer seeks to do just that. The initial premise is a simple one: after a multinational endeavor to turn back the tide of global warming releases a developed agent, CW-7, into the Earth’s atmosphere, all life on Earth is wiped out when the result is essentially a new ice age. The survivors live on a single train and that allows director Joon-ho Bong and co-writer Kelly Masterson to tell a dark story of futuristic human oppression without all of the complications of the full, real, world in play.

And Snowpiercer uses the set-up to tell a story that is essentially a class warfare allegory. The sense of oppression among the lowest class of survivors on the train has reached a peak and the revolution has come. The result is a film that is realistic in its approach to the violent overthrow of an overbearing regime. Snowpiercer is well-constructed in that it works hard to develop the concept that human survival is not enough; the human spirit must be allowed to flourish and systems of control that diminish some and elevate others are untenable, even among the last dwindling population on the planet. It is worth noting that Snowpiercer is based upon a series of graphic novels that I have not read. As a result, this is a very pure review of the film Snowpiercer, unencumbered by any preconceptions about the graphic novel or how it was adapted to film.

Seventeen years after CW-7 is dispersed through Earth’s upper atmosphere, the human population that survived the attempt to reverse global warming’s effects live on the Rattling Ark, a train that has been moving since the world outside froze. Aboard the train, Curtis resists the totalitarian forces that tote guns and do daily head counts of each compartment. Curtis and Edgar get a message (embedded in a protein block) that there is a security expert, Namgoong Minsu, in the prison car and Curtis believes that if they can get to the front of the train and take the engine, they can run the train. Curtis wants to revolt and install Gilliam as the new leader of the train (and thus, the world), though the very old Gilliam is resistant to the idea. Edgar thinks Curtis would be a good leader, but he is resistant to the idea. So, a plan is hatched that hinges on four gates (quite a distance apart) being opened at the same time for four seconds, which might allow Curtis to break Namgoong out of the prison car.

With luck (and the oppressors not having bullets) on their side, Curtis manages to stage a break-in to the prison car. There, he and his group of malcontents find Namgoong and break him and his daughter Yona out of prison. In exchange for drugs, Namgoong agrees to help Curtis and his group through the gates that separate the train’s cars and soon Curtis is leading a bona fide revolution. But that revolution soon comes at a high cost; traveling into the more wealthy and elite sections of the train, Curtis encounters Minister Mason, the leader of the train’s military, and rich folks who will kill to defend their position, like the teacher in the school train. As Curtis loses friends and allies, he takes drastic measures to reach the engine which might make him into the leader, but not necessarily the one Edgar foresaw him becoming.

First and foremost, Snowpiercer looks completely credible. Those drawn to the Captain America film franchise because of Chris Evans’s clean-cut good looks will be shocked to see just how filthy he can look. Throughout Snowpiercer, Evans (who leads the cast as Curtis) and everyone else is covered in a thin sheen of dirt and sweat. Everything in the movie is dirty and aged, looking stressed and worn (save the firearms carried by the officers aboard the train). That creates an instantly believable atmosphere and the perception that nothing new has been made in seventeen years. It also makes one wonder immediately what exactly the protein blocks are that everyone is consuming. The contrast with the cleanliness and color palate in the forward sections is striking and it makes for a visually interesting movie, even if it is a bit obvious.

The film’s mood is also established right away by the seemingly random question all of the inhabitants of the car Curtis is in are asked. Military thugs with heavy guns ask if anyone in the car knows how to play violin. When one man mentions that he and his wife both play and he is carted off (without his wife) because they “need his hands,” there is an underlying sense of menace to the exchange that helps instantly encapsulate the dark world that Earth aboard the Rattling Ark has become.

Snowpiercer smartly develops as Curtis and his rebels move forward in the train, encountering different social groups in each compartment. The film is like a mini-Gulliver’s Travels in that each train car is like an almost entirely different world. The social commentary abounds and Snowpiercer does with more success and subtlety what Elysium (reviewed here!) tried to do with its thematic bludgeon; it shows all the horror of class division in a world of diminished resources.

The film would be an unfortunate failure were it not for the intriguing characters. Curtis is an intense man who is easy to watch and him asking Edgar early in the film about his earliest memories sets up the film’s late and horrifying revelations. Gilliam is an interesting, if tragic, mentor and Edgar’s part in the story is enough to give reasonable cause to the revolution; he is a young person who wants a better life than the one he is given by those in power. Even Wilford, the leader Curtis must ultimately confront, makes some sense in the context of the one-train world.

Despite the characters being easy to watch, not all of Snowpiercer is enjoyable in its presentation. Many of the fight sequences utilize handheld cameras, so they are shaky and frenetic. Given that the fights themselves are already packed with motion, moving the camera during them just becomes nauseating. Moreover, much of the actual fight to get to the front of the train is a bloodbath and the high cost (in human lives) is difficult to watch. I mark that as a success of Snowpiercer as the viewer actually cares as various people are killed in each confrontation. What could be a truly monstrous revelation about the backstory, which comes very late in the film, is hinted at enough throughout the movie and follows on the heels of explicit violence as to make it seem more obvious than truly troubling.

The acting in Snowpiercer is good. Chris Evans rises to the occasion of being the troubled antihero who rallies the masses to his side even as his character hides a deep, dark secret from his past. Evans plays Curtis without much charisma, which sells the concept of Curtis being relegated to one of the back cars well. Jamie Bell (Edgar), John Hurt (Gilliam), and Octavia Spencer (Tanya) credibly round out the caste of oppressed characters with Bell contributing a wide-eyed sense of optimism that serves his character well. Tilda Swinton plays Minister Mason with an appropriately stern demeanor that does not hint at all at the way she played the villain in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!). Unfortunately, at the other end of the spectrum, Alison Pill is underused as the teacher (her clean cheerfulness is used largely to offset her character’s quick and bloody turn) and Ed Harris’s Wilford quickly turns into a mouthpiece for excessive exposition. Kang-ho Song plays Namgoong with enough of an off-balance sense to sell the drug addict and the engineer in him, though his best moments are when he struggles to protect his character’s daughter.

Snowpiercer has some problems with suspension of disbelief – like why does it take seventeen years for a rebellion to truly take hold? How is it that the oppressors do not monitor the aft compartments that well? What possible currency exists after an apocalypse that allows such a rigid class structure to be maintained, much less created?! – but they are not so glaring as to make the film unwatchable or uninteresting. Instead, Snowpiercer is likely to be one of the smarter science fiction pieces to drop during Summer Blockbuster Season this year; it’s a shame its limited release will not give it the exposure of more obvious, vacuous fare, like the latest Transformers sequel.

For other works with Chris Evans, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Thor: The Dark World
The Avengers
Captain America: The First Avenger
Push
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Fantastic Four
TMNT
The Perfect Score
Not Another Teen Movie

7/10

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

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

Art House Vampires: Only Lovers Left Alive

The Good: Good acting, Wonderful mood, Interesting characters
The Bad: Somewhat plodding and plotless
The Basics: Intensely smart as a slice-of-life, “man vs. society” mood piece, Only Lovers Left Alive is an adult vampire film showcasing the struggles of the modern, moody, immortals.


I am absolutely fascinated by the process by which films are created and distributed, especially in the United States. While there is an occasional breakout foreign film in the U.S., like Let The Right One In (reviewed here!) a few years ago, it seems to be a real fluke and American cinema seems to be one of the more successful remaining exports. But there is a life to filmmaking and the cinema world outside the United States that makes it very difficult to make a foreign film into anything other than an art house film in the U.S. With Only Lovers Left Alive, director Jim Jarmusch seems to be trying to stack the deck for success and it will be interesting to see if his latest film is able to break out of the shadow of the art house to capitalize on the elements he is using.

The director of Dead Man (reviewed here in a review where I can only assume the film garnered such a high rating because of my affinity for Lance Henriksen) returns with Only Lovers Left Alive and it seems like he might be trying to develop a blockbuster. Only Lovers Left Alive is a vampire story and, despite the failure of Vampire Academy at the box office, vampires are still pretty hot. Art house favorite Tilda Swinton is second-billed (she may be “c list” in the mainstream United States and an art house favorite here, but she’s a-list in Europe and most of the rest of the world) and the cast is loaded with rising stars loved in the U.S.: Tom Hiddleston, Anton Yelchin, and Mia Wasikowska. To its credit, Only Lovers Left Alive stands well on its own and deserves some mainstream attention, even if it does not rely upon action or graphic violence to create an intriguing vampire story. Indeed, with Only Lovers Left Alive, Jim Jarmusch has written and directed the logical, adult successor to The Twilight Saga (reviewed here!).

Opening in Detroit at night, the reclusive musician Adam is visited by Ian, who supplies him with guitars. Adam makes an odd request of Ian; he wants a single wooden bullet made of hardwood, like ironwood. After paying Ian off, Adam goes to a nearby hospital disguised as a doctor where he buys blood from a skittish doctor doing research. In Tangier, Eve buys blood from none other than Christopher Marlowe and as Marlowe, Eve, and Adam return to their separate homes to consume blood, they are revealed to be immortal vampires. Eve contacts Adam and is taken by his ennui enough that she resolves to come visit him, despite how much she hates traveling long distances. Reunited at Adam’s run-down studio/home, the ancient lovers reconnect. At night, Adam takes Eve out and shows her historical sites and they listen to his new music, play games, and reminisce about historical figures they met over the eons. Eve discovers Adam’s wooden bullet and expresses her concern about his moodiness. Adam reveals to Eve that he has dreamed of Eve’s sister and Eve mentions that she and Marlow had similar dreams.

Sure enough, one night, Adam and Eve return home to find Ava in the house, listening to Adam’s music. She is impulsive, comparatively young, and continually hungry. When the trio goes out with Ian to a local club, Adam is annoyed by how Ava risks everything by bringing a flask of blood with her and spends the night teasing Ian. When Eve wakes up to discover Ava has exsanguinated Ian, Adam and Eve send Ava packing back to Los Angeles. After disposing of the body, Adam and Eve flee the United States for Tangier where they struggle emotionally with Marlowe’s final moments and physically with a deficiency of blood.

Only Lovers Left Alive is a vampire romance that illustrates the practical problems of being a vampire in the modern world. Jim Jarmusch smartly refuses to populate the film with many vampires and keeps the concept grounded very much in the real world. Adam and Eve do not have a tumultuous relationship; theirs is a strong, mature love. So, details like Adam getting irked by how Eve plays chess and beats him, but him not having an outburst when he loses plays very well for the characters. Similarly, Only Lovers Left Alive takes the reasonable position that vampires would not simply vamp anyone; in order to maintain their secret, they do not convert others, they expend a lot of energy maintaining their anonymity.

While often charmless (it is with a stark sense of realism that Jarmusch creates a vampire film), Only Lovers Left Alive is not without its moments. While Adam is sullen and artistically pretentious, Eve has a spark of life to her. Played with a subtle energy by Tilda Swinton, Eve brings the film’s moments of irony to the forefront, like when she is arranging passage out of the U.S. and has to give the birthdays of their aliases. Otherwise, there is quite a bit of philosophy, history, and mood to Only Lovers Left Alive, but very little actually happens.

What feels fresh about Only Lovers Left Alive is how there is no antagonist, no secret society, no culture, and really no menace from the vampires in the film. Eve has the ability to determine the age of any living thing with her touch and the fangs are only shown out (not ever in the process of mystically replacing the normal canines) and there is a little bit of superspeed shown in Only Lovers Left Alive. Jarmusch also smartly makes the vampires susceptible to the blood diseases of humans. Eve and Adam are patient, mature and seasoned, contrasted with Ava’s reckless impulsiveness. Basically, the film is about a couple that reunites and has to go on the run . . . but they don’t run and no one is chasing them.

What makes the film worth watching is that the performers rise to the occasion of doing little other than embodying timeless characters. Tilda Swinton manages to pull off being reserved without even a hint of menace, like from her White Witch in The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!). Tom Hiddleston is able to play Adam without a hint of the charm that has made him an international star. Hiddleston plays the archetypal moody artist incredibly well. Hiddleston and Swinton have decent on-screen chemistry.

Only Lovers Left Alive is an interesting mood piece. Jim Jarmusch wrote and directed a film that does what it sets out to do well, but it’s not the most incredible premise or execution of that unremarkable premise. Much more of a relationship drama than a vampire film, Only Lovers Left Alive is a moody, emotionally-driven man vs. society film that is worth seeing once, if not adding to one’s permanent collection.

For other works with Mia Wasikowska, please check out my reviews of:
The Double
Alice In Wonderland
The Kids Are All Right
Amelia
Defiance

7/10

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

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

Quirky For The Sake Of Being Quirky, Burn After Reading Disappoints This Coen Brothers Fan.

The Good: Moments of humor
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Not overly funny or clever, Pacing, Nothing superlative on the acting front.
The Basics: Wasting the talents of those involved, Burn After Reading is a letdown by the Coen Brothers; involving a lost disc and a woman's attempt to make money off it.


Last night, I had the choice of rewatching a film I had seen before and loved or taking in Burn After Reading, the latest endeavor by the Coen Brothers. Given that I was a little tired, I opted for the shorter of the two movies and that led me to screen Burn After Reading. I have traditionally enjoyed the dark humor and quirky characters presented in Coen Brothers films and had seen a few previews for this movie which made me think it would be an enjoyable addition to their library. It was not.

As I contemplate Burn After Reading, I find myself thinking of David Lynch. Is it possible the Coen brothers want to be David Lynch? Lynch has a way of getting away with absurd and quirky for the sake of quirky. He pulled it off admirably with Mulholland Drive (reviewed here!) even though the film used a sense of random plot elements, purposely campy acting and obvious dream imagery intended to confuse viewers as opposed to telling a narrative with any real sense. The Coen brothers seem to want to do this at various points in Burn After Reading and they fail terribly. The story is confused (not confusing), pointless and ultimately unimpressive, leaving even a viewer who is predisposed toward the quirky and odd disappointed.

Osbourne Cox is an intelligence agent who is demoted and transferred within the CIA due to his drinking problem and erratic behavior. Rather than endure such humiliation, he leaves his job, much to the chagrin of his wife, Katie. Osbourne sets out to make a living by writing his memoirs, which he does with limited success while Katie makes moves to divorce him. In the process, Katie copies his memoirs onto a disc for her lawyer and that disc ends up left behind at a gym where Linda Litzke and Chad.

Linda and Chad come across the disc, access it and come to believe that it is not a memoir, but rather a collection of state secrets. They attempt to extort Osbourne for money for the disc and when he refuses to play ball, they take it to the Russians in hope of selling the information to them, all so Linda can get a boob job. Tragedy befalls Chad and Linda works to escalate things, mostly to impress Harry . . . and then the movie ends.

Outside that plot description, there are just minor details of character. For example, Harry, a Treasury Department worker, is having an affair with Katie and begins going out with Linda when he begins to tire of her. Linda works with Chad and under Ted, who has an obvious crush on her. Linda is motivated by a desire to make enough money so she can have cosmetic surgery. Only that last fact actually has a real effect on the plot and truth be told, it only explains why Linda does what she is doing.

Otherwise, Burn After Reading is a dark farce that is more about weird for the sake of weird than actually creating interesting, viable characters in absurd situations or absurd characters in realistic situations. Instead, the film is intentionally choppy, as if the Coen Brothers primarily learned from No Country For Old Men that they did not have to show vital parts of a story.

The unfortunate aspect of Burn After Reading is that the summary sections where an intelligence agent monitoring the situation discusses it with his supervisor are possibly the best, most direct, funniest portions of the movie. In these sections, the movie is recapped and events are filled in without showing them on screen. This saves the viewer from actually having to watch any of the primary characters do anything and this is, strangely, a relief given how tedious and unlikable they are.

Moreover, the acting in Burn After Reading is a terrible waste of the talent involved. Brad Pitt moves like his crazy character in Twelve Monkeys (reviewed here!) and talks like the character he portrayed on Friends for his guest shot there. Frances McDormand, who can usually be counted on for a solid performance seems to think that all she needs to do to be funny is bug out her eyes and talk in a slightly higher pitch. She plays Linda as the combination of an opportunist and an idiot and her acting is simply a bug-eyed, energetic recasting of her "Fargo" character in some ways. Regardless, there is something familiar and well within her established range in the way she plays Linda.

George Clooney is given top billing in Burn After Reading and he plays Harry, arguably the least significant role in the main plot. He is thoroughly unlikable as a slimy adulterer who talks his way into Linda's heart and . . . wait, yes, we've seen this before, too. The Coen brothers used him essentially the same way as the protagonist in O Brother Where Art Thou? And that the Coen brothers use John Malkovich to play a character with a short temper is hardly worth exploring. Even Richard Jenkins seems to have been more a function of casting as the love-struck Ted. One suspects the Coen brothers saw his work on the first season of Six Feet Under (reviewed here!) and said "That's our Ted!"

In other words, none of the performances in Burn After Reading are especially compelling, even Tilda Swinton, who I usually like. Perhaps this is because Swinton's character of Katie is usually relegated to listening to other people deliver their much more active lines leaving Swinton to perform mostly by staring fixedly at other characters. If it seems I am glossing over my usual analysis of plot and character, then I have not been clear enough:

The plot is a simple extortion character and outside a passing trait or two used to completely define them, none of the characters have character. They are types: Harry is the womanizer, Linda is an opportunist, Osbourne is the furious heavy, Katie is the wronged wife, Chad is the idiot sidekick and Ted is the honorable, love-struck guy. The rest of the movie is a series of quick cuts, quirky one-liners that fail to add up to anything substantive and jokes that are not nearly as funny as anything else the Coen brothers have done.

Instead, Burn After Reading is problematic in its pacing, rushed in its resolution and populated by characters who are thoroughly unenjoyable to watch. Life is too short and those who want something funny will do better by tuning into . . . pretty much anything else.

For other works by the Coen Brothers, check out my reviews of:
No Country For Old Men
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Miller’s Crossing

4/10

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

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

| | |