Enjoyable And Neglected, Life Of Crime Is Still Worth Watching!

The Good: Funny, Good character mix
The Bad: Very plot-centered
The Basics: Life Of Crime is a fun, albeit basic, crime comedy dressed up with a good cast and an interesting mix of weird characters.


With the recent death of Robin Williams, I find myself thinking more and more about how complex and ridiculous the film industry is. With Williams, it came in the form of Terry Gilliam being unable to get American investors to pony up ten million dollars for a film with Williams and Johnny Depp. For sure, monied people know more about money than I do, but the idea that a movie with Robin Williams and Johnny Depp with a budget of $44 million or less would not be able to (at least) make back the investment seems pretty ridiculous to me. We’ll never know, now. This tops off my review of the new indie film Life Of Crime because Jennifer Aniston is in a new film that is getting far less press than The Skeleton Twins or the recent wave of pseudo-Christian (evangelical) films like God Is Not Dead.

To be fair, Life Of Crime is not a flawless movie by any means. Writer/director Daniel Schechter may well be the last person in the world making new adaptations of Elmore Leonard books (wasn’t that a mid-/late-‘90’s thing?!) and all 1970’s period crime pieces are likely to get stuck in the shadow of American Hustle (reviewed here!) for a while, but Life Of Crime is a solid movie that is well-made . . . it deserved a lot more attention than it is getting. For sure, cinema is a crowded marketplace, but that a film where Jennifer Aniston is leading a cast that includes people like Tim Robbins, Mos Def, Will Forte and John Hawkes, is produced and released and cinephiles have no idea it exists is troubling.

Opening in Detroit, 1978, Ordell and Louis team up definitively when a hood takes Louis for $27. Ordell runs the man over for him and the two commit to Ordell’s plan to get embezzled money from the ultra-rich Frank Dawson. Ordell’s plan is to kidnap Frank’s wife, Mickey, and ransom her for a million dollars, which they will put into an account in the Bahamas. Frank is neglectful of his wife and actually seems to actively dislike her (doing things like driving her home drunk, hitting their other car and leaving Mickey unable to open her door to get out of the car and pinned down by a giant trophy!), which makes his co-worker, Marshall, believe he has a chance with Mickey. When Ordell and Louis go to abduct Mickey things do not go as planned – Mickey drops a jar of marmalade and, because she is barefoot, cuts her foot fairly badly and Marshall enters the house, ready to make his move on Mickey!

After the abduction, Louis and Ordell take Mickey to the house of a Nazi Ordell knows, Richard Monk. Marshall wakes up and makes it look like he was in a car accident (to explain the head injury Ordell gave him to knock him out) and one of Ordell’s tails on Frank informs him that Frank is in the Bahamas with the same woman he was seen with on another occasion. Ordell realizes that Frank may have more than a simple mistress and Frank tells Melanie that he has filed for divorce from Mickey. While Mickey deals with her imprisonment, Louis and Ordell realize that Frank has so little interest in his wife that they will never get a ransom from him! As the two try to get Frank to pay the ransom, the confluence of weird characters complicate what was supposed to be easy money for the pair.

Life Of Crime is easily-recognizable to fans of pop culture as an adaptation of an Elmore Leonard novel by its collection of quirky characters. Richard is a Nazi who is a peeping tom, who is entirely comfortable doing business with a black man; Ordell is more comfortable with working with Richard than Louis is! Melanie seems straightforward, but has a subtle psychopathic vein in her as she encourages Frank to let the kidnappers kill Mickey (he’s divorcing her anyway . . .). Marshall is more dogged in trying to find what happened to Melanie than the police are! A collection of eclectic characters from all different ways of life is very much a common conceit in Elmore Leonard’s pulp works.

And the film works, even though it is far more average than it is extraordinary. Life Of Crime is funny and entertaining, though it lacks a spark to make it rewatchable. The caper and characters are fun, but despite how many quirky characters there are, the story is ultimately more straightforward than a truly character-centered film. The abduction has very obvious complications presented almost immediately – the wounded foot, the suitor in the house, the divorce papers – so as the film unfolds, it becomes more an exercise in waiting to see how they will influence one another. Life Of Crime plays out well, but it is hardly surprising or audacious.

On the performance front, Life Of Crime is made up of an impressive cast, who adequately embody the characters they portray. Jennifer Aniston plays Mickey without any originality or distinction; the role is straightforward to an extent that it is almost surprising Schechter managed to get her for the role. Mickey is not as memorable as Aniston’s character from Horrible Bosses (reviewed here!), for example. Tim Robbins, Isla Fisher, and Will Forte all give performances that are well-within their previously-established ranges. Even Mos Def, who is wonderfully charismatic as Ordell, gives a performance that seems to be more the result of good casting than anything he is stretching for in the role.

John Hawkes does manage to give a performance in Life Of Crime that allows him to shine. For perhaps the first time in anything I have seen him in, Hawkes does not seem like he is trying to give the performance Sean Penn would have given if he got the same part. Hawkes gives a decent portrayal of an emotionally-confused down-and-out not-quite criminal and he makes Louis pop well-enough to make Life Of Crime watchable.

Life Of Crime is solid, watchable and standard; while none of those are adjectives that might make a blockbuster, it is hard to believe that if the film had had any real promotion, it would have been bigger than it is likely to be.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
10,000 Days
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
The Expendables 3
Guardians Of The Galaxy
The Zero Theorem

5.5/10

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.
| | |

Expectations Of Exceptional: Mystic River, The Average Great Film

The Good: Acting, Soundtrack, Moments of plot/character
The Bad: Movie never reaches its emotional potential, Somewhat predictable character arcs
The Basics: In a truly great, though unsurprising film, Mystic River presents a murder mystery centering around three childhood friends who have taken different paths. Does not exceed expectations.


If there were ever an "average great film," it would have to be Mystic River, the Clint Eastwood-directed drama that features one of the most impressive casts in Hollywood. In fact, if there is anything truly wrong with Mystic River, it is that the film is set up to dazzle an audience with such practiced, confirmed actors and themes as to make it almost impossible for the movie to ultimately underwhelm the seasoned moviegoer.

Jimmy, Dave and Sean are growing up together in a neighborhood as close friends, playing the street, planning pranks and writing their names in wet cement, when one day their lives change drastically. Two men approach the kids, scold them and because they are posing as police officers, they convinced Dave to get in their car under the auspices of taking him home to tell his mother about the trouble he's been getting into. Sean and Jimmy immediately inform their parents, but Dave is gone. Dave is held in a cellar for four days before he successfully escapes the tortures of the men who have captured him.

Flash forward twenty-five years. Dave is quietly raising his son, Jimmy is running a business and raising his three daughters and Sean finds himself trying to reconcile with his wife who abandoned him and left him shaken. Sean is a detective and when he and his partner, Whitey Powers, catch an especially brutal homicide, Sean finds himself in an unenviable position. The deceased is Jimmy's oldest daughter, Katie, and the best suspect for the murder is Dave.

Mystic River has all of the markers of a great movie: a wonderful cast, a dense and disturbing plot, phenomenal direction, layered characters and actors who are performing at the top of their game. Mystic River has all of these things. So, why was I so underwhelmed?

The movie is underwhelming because these are the expectations going in. Watching the trailer promises that this is going to be a big, bold movie in all the ways listed above. Are the performances good? Yes. Is the plot disturbing and complicated? Certainly. Does director Clint Eastwood deliver as far as establishing and developing a mood that tells the story well? Yes. But that was the expectation going in. The problem is, it doesn't do anything more. The movie lives up to expectations, but because the expectations are of greatness, when the movie is great in every technical sense, it merely reinforces the expectations.

One of the nice things about Mystic River is that the male characters are all utterly dependent upon the female characters for reassurance and genuine definition, which is why Whitey remains somewhat distant from the spotlight. Jimmy's actions throughout the movie characterize him strongly as a man who will defend his family at all costs. He is a man of love and vengeance, hardened by time in jail and likely criminal behavior since - there's no other good reason for his lackeys who have a parallel murder investigation to the police - and all that humanizes him and allows him to live with himself comes from his wife Annabeth. Annabeth removes his doubts and justifies all of his actions. Similarly, Sean's estranged wife provides him with definition and balance outside the job.

The proof of the value of women in the men's lives is evident in the relationship between Dave and his wife, Celeste. Celeste is suspicious when Dave returns home the morning of Katie's murder with blood on his clothes and a nasty cut on his chest. She listens as he tells other people different reasons for the blood and becomes troubled when his stated reason - taking out a mugger who tried to attack him when he left the bar - does not appear in the newspapers. Celeste stops believing in Dave, reinforced when he reveals the truth about what happened when he was abducted to her. It is when Celeste stops believing in Dave that his reality shatters and he begins to be unable to function.

And Dave is a sympathetic character. The viewer empathizes with his struggle; the idea of him being tormented and trying to live a normal life after that is a compelling character journey. When Dave's truths are revealed, he becomes vivid and pitiable. It is difficult to watch him struggle, so vivid is his experience and the ramifications of it.

Similarly, Jimmy Markum is exceptionally empathetic. In the world we hear is increasingly dangerous, Jimmy becomes the logical extension of the desire to protect one's family from the realities of those dangers. Jimmy is arguably a man who is doing what society demands of him - reinforced by the love and support of his wife for doing it.

Jimmy is played by Sean Penn. Penn, who has impressed me in All The King's Men and I Am Sam (reviewed here!) continues to prove he can be a true dramatic heavy. With a gaze, with the setting of his jaw, Penn is able to create a vivid characterization. From his earliest appearances on screen, the audience is able to figure out exactly what kind of man Jimmy has become in the years since his childhood. The viewer is able to buy completely a quasi-thug who is still able to ask his childhood buddy, "Do you ever wonder what would have happened if you had gotten into that car?" because of the way Penn portrays Jimmy. He's not just a dumb thug or hitman here, he's layered and that role is somewhat demanding. And Penn delivers.

Kevin Bacon is surprisingly good as Sean Devine, though the role is not much of a stretch for the intense actor. Instead, Bacon comes naturally to the role of a detective. Similarly, Laurence Fishburn, who plays Sean's partner Whitey, seems naturally cast as a detective and the role falls more within his established caliber of acting rather than an actual challenge for him. Marcia Gay Harden (Celeste), Laura Linney (Jimmy's wife Annabeth), and Emmy Rossum (Katie) all give wonderful supporting performances. All three have been in roles where they are leads and prove their acting worth and Mystic River merely offers them another outing, continued practice. Harden, particularly, is unchallenged by the role she plays in this film as she plays it quite closely to her character from The Spitfire Grill (reviewed here!).

The performance that makes Mystic River worth coming back to more than once is that of Tim Robbins as Dave. Robbins is quiet and understated, the very model of deeply wounded in this movie. Robbins plays Dave in such a way that the viewer knows he's not right even before he delivers his first line. With his body language and soft-spoken delivery of most of his lines, Robbins wonderfully embodies a man whose childhood demons still live within him.

The DVD is scant on extras, which I was disappointed by. It is, however, the only real disappointment coming out of Mystic River. Everything else lived up to the viewer's expectations, high as they were.

For other works with Spencer Treat Clark, check out my reviews of:
The Last House On The Left
Unbreakable
Gladiator

6/10

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

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

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy: Very Funny, But Very Average Comedy.

The Good: Funny, DVD bonus features, Generally the acting
The Bad: Somewhat repetitive humor
The Basics: Funny, but often a one-trick pony, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy excels on the acting front more than on the character or plot points.


Some part of me has come to entirely embrace the old axiom that it is easier to get work if you already have it. I come to this acceptance by way of watching more and more movies my wife loves. She is a big fan of films I derisively call "dumb comedies." She doesn't argue; she's looking for light fare full of dick and fart jokes, unburdened by social commentary. She wants foul language, nudity and jokes that are racy and while I have not, traditionally, been a fan of such fare, I have found a few that I enjoy. Largely, the ones that she enjoys are the works that feature Will Ferrell in them. She's a fan and there are a few works by or featuring Ferrell or from his production company that I have come to enjoy.

The latest in the parade of movies my partner has subjected me to is Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy. This brings me back to my original premise. Having just seen The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard which is by the same creative team as Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy and Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby, it is easy to see how the production company makes its friends and sticks with them. The primary cast for the three films is startlingly similar, especially with the troupe surrounding Ferrell. It seems David Koechner and Kathryn Hahn, for example, have comedic talents Ferrell and his team enjoy exploiting. The only problematic aspect of their continued cinematic associations is that they never seem to be asked to do anything other than their initial shtick. Fortunately, Ferrell and his team mix it up by infusing other talent, like Steve Carell and Christina Applegate into their otherwise familiar mix.

In Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy, Will Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a newscaster in San Diego who is at the top of his game. He wins the nightly ratings battle for the attention of his audience and reports the news with his team, smoking and drinking his way through his sappy deliveries of the nightly news. In the 1970s, Burgundy becomes a legend and his arrogance grows, in part because he is surrounded by sycophants like Champ Kind, Brian Fantana, and weatherman Brick Tamland. But when diversity becomes the word of the day, Burgundy is teamed up with investigative reporter and newscaster Veronica Corningstone.

While Ron works to seduce Veronica, she finds his advances both annoying and charming. When they do hook up, Ron almost immediately violates their privacy by reporting the act. After further incidents which disrespect her, Veronica sets out for revenge. She gets it through Ron's Achilles heel; having Ron swear on air by simply changing his call line on the teleprompter. As Veronica takes over, Ron flounders and his team struggle to get on without him.

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is essentially a mock documentary of the life of Ron Burgundy and the humor is derived largely from uncomfortable deadpans and such things as one of the characters (Brick) being mentally retarded and socially awkward. The reversals, like Ron promising Veronica he will not say anything about their sex immediately followed by him telling all of his friends, tend to happen quickly and be very predictable. This is not to say the film isn't funny, but it is a very standard sort of absurdist humor for which Will Ferrell is famous. That said, there's not much surprising here.

Ferrell presents Ron Burgundy as a stiff, strangely formal character whose on-air persona never goes away. As a result, when he tries to interact with friends or with Veronica, there come strange deliveries that seem inappropriate for the setting (imagine having a newscaster on a dinner date who spoke with the same deliveries as they did on-air). Ferrell is adept at the deliveries and he makes Ron Burgundy funny as a result. However, because most of the humor is related directly to either delivering the news or scoring with Veronica, much of the movie seems repetitive.

This is where DVD truly pushes a film up; in the bonus features, where Will Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy for an interview, the result is absolutely hilarious. Ferrell is fearless in his presentation of the parody opposite a serious interviewer and the result is comic gold. Similarly, the outtakes and deleted scenes are very funny.

What Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy does best is lampoon the pretensions of the news industry, especially in the way it attempts to make information entertainment. Things like the repeated joke where Burgundy and his team stride toward the camera and look earnestly at it and one another effectively skewer the way actual news organizations try to blur the lines between disseminating information and keeping an audience hooked with personalities. Of course, the movie is not at all just social commentary, which is made evident by the battle royale that occurs between Ron Burgundy's news crew and those of the competing stations (which is little more than an excuse for cameos by people like Ben Stiller). That scene creates a parody of violence and offsets the predictable and slow moments revolving around the news story of the decade, a pregnant panda at the San Diego zoo.

All of the actors are thoroughly invested in their roles and it is hard to actually criticize the acting here. While Ferrell and Koechner do their usual schtick - they play off one another wonderfully - and Fred Willard plays the station manager pretty much exactly as any fan of his would predict, other performers nail their roles. Steve Carell, for example, establishes his dry wit on the big screen perfectly as Brick. He has a dry delivery that underplays any form of sarcasm and given that this is one of his roles before The Office, it is easy to see how he got that role. He plays Brick as a hapless mentally challenged individual and that works.

But the real standout for acting has to be Christina Applegate. Yes, Christina Applegate, whose fame was predicated on her looks, appears in Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy as Veronica and she is impressive. Veronica is basically the straightman to Ron's absurdity and Applegate plays off Ferrell's over-the-top comic sense with an understated delivery that makes her the perfect foil. More than that, she plays Veronica as incredibly smart and she seems mature and intelligent enough to plausibly be in the place she is. Applegate is a surprise who steals all of her scenes.

This is quite a feat when one considers that much of the movie is spent with the characters staring at the camera delivering lines. When not doing that, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is simple hoping to grab laughs off the look of the 1970s personas. Ron dresses in a maroon suit and he and his companions have big-70s hair. Those jokes replay less well than the satirical comments on the news industry but they still work.

Largely, though, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is good, escapist humor that sets out to get some laughs and it does that. It does little more than that, but it works for what it is.

For other works with David Koechner, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Piranha 3DD
Paul
Extract
Sex Drive
Get Smart
Let’s Go To Prison
Farce Of the Penguins
Thank You For Smoking
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Waiting . . .

6/10

For other movie 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.
| | |

Mars Attacks: The Not-Exactly-Tough-Call On Spielberg's Magnum Blah.

The Good: Decent enough acting, General plot is cool
The Bad: Characters don't pop, Confused details, Mediocre use of best actors, Problematic specific plot
The Basics: When martians invade, Tom Cruise proves he can act like a jerk and the audience finds themselves left with special effects movie that does not add up.


I have to give some credit to anyone who tries to remake something that has been made in at least three formats and tries to put their own touch on something that is essentially already ingrained in the American collective unconscious. That said, Steven Spielberg's stab at War Of The Worlds fails to recreate the experience of the alien invasion hoax perpetrated on the radio, the intrigue of H.G. Well's novel or even add something extraordinary and new. Instead, in his attempt to visualize an alien invasion from Martians, Spielberg and his writing staff create a jumble of images tied together by unlikable characters and mediocre acting.

Ray Ferrier, day laborer and weekend father of two, has his children for the weekend. Lucky him. Instead of having a great time together, Ray, Robbie and Rachel (yes, the names in the movie are that bad) end up on the forefront of an extraterrestrial invasion. Giant tripods rise from the earth bearing martians bent on blowing up everything in their path. And that just so happens to be the Ferrier family as they flee from the New York City area toward Boston. The martians are everywhere, blowing everything up.

Or capturing people.

Or bothering to look into basements.

Or creating some sort of larger biological organism over apparently random surfaces.

It's not quite clear. The best potential strength of War Of The Worlds (which is more accurately titled "Humans Getting Their Asses Kicked By Invading Martians") is also its greatest weakness. Ray Ferrier and his family are pretty much common folks. An alien invasion from their perspective has the potential to be interesting. They aren't scientists, they aren't military. So whatever they experience, they are clueless as to the motives, biology or methods of the alien invaders. That's a cool idea, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem is, we are left wondering about a lot of key aspects of important concepts in the movie. So, we hear a lot of theories in War Of The Worlds and it is pretty well established that the martians deposited their tripods on Earth underground some time ago (a reasonable estimate would be at least 600 years ago, as there are several under the New York City area that would have been pretty hard to disguise dropping off once the city was there) but we have no real idea when. Some characters theorize they've been underground for millions of years, which seems silly. After all, the further back the plans for alien conquest go, the more ridiculous the waiting period becomes (i.e. it's much easier to conquer cavemen than it is to enslave 21rst Century folk).

Spielberg, unfortunately, deals with the problem of perspective by simply adding a great number of levels to the invading force. This is problematic because they are contradictory and confusing, not from a perspective sense but from a basic storytelling concept. So, for example, when we first see the martians, they are microwaving every person in their path. Okay, the viewer is meant to understand they are hostile and are out to destroy all human life. We can live with this. Near the end of the movie, however, humans are being captured and liquefied by the martians for either power source, food or to create the strange biological mass that is growing all around places the martians have effectively cleared out. The martians have pretty sophisticated shielding, so unless they are even more wasteful than humans, this weird development near the end seems like it ought to have happened right away. Unless, of course, one is simply making a movie with special effects and assumes the audience has no reasoning skills or desire to understand what the movie is actually about.

The secondary problem with this type of perspective is that when we are following ordinary people, one would expect them to have pretty ordinary experiences, even in the midst of an alien invasion. In this incarnation of War Of The Worlds, Ray Ferrier and family are the ordinary people who happen to be in all the right places at the right time to learn about the invaders, witness all the phases, provide information and help do their part to repel the aliens. It's silly. Dreamcatcher (reviewed here!) had the potential to explore this perspective better, as did Signs (reviewed here!). I've yet to see a film where the common person dealing with the invasion is explored effectively and realistically.

The tragedy here is that Spielberg had the chance to truly nail it with his attempt. With War Of The Worlds, most all viewers already know how it ends. The magic of this particular story is that because (essentially) random chance foils the martians, we don't need our protagonist to be a hero or even remotely heroic. We don't even need our protagonist to survive necessarily.

Spielberg seemed to realize this in part by having us follow a fairly unlikable protagonist. Ray Ferrier is portrayed as a jerk. He's not terribly into his children or his job and his initial characterization could have worked wonderfully, had it only stuck. Instead, Spielberg's obsession with heroes comes into play and most of Ray's negative qualities are sublimated for the chance to contribute and be heroic, even if in minor ways.

Far more interesting is his daughter, Rachel. The story would have been the ultimate in creepy and intriguing had Ray been killed early in the movie, leaving poor Rachel to fend for herself. Instead, Rachel is dragged along as a character foil for Ray, not developing a character, delivering the few clever lines of the movie, and mostly relegated to standing in the background screaming.

Rachel is played by Dakota Fanning, who I've oft cited as one of the few talents evident already in the next generation of actresses. War Of The Worlds wastes the considerable talents of the girl who blew audiences away in I Am Sam. Fanning is condemned to a role of screaming and not doing much other than that. She does it well, though.

The lead, Ray, is played by Tom Cruise and I suppose he is acting well in War Of The Worlds. His character is unlikable and he comes across as ultimately unlikable. He's a jerk. Cruise plays that well.

It's not enough to recommend the movie, though. This incarnation of War Of The Worlds takes on just a little too much to keep us with such improbable protagonists (the last portion of the movie, where Ray and Rachel are hiding out in a survivalist's basement just does not fit) and there are a lot of editing decisions that are noticeable and awkward. There are cuts while Ray is driving, for example, that simply aren't timed right making the visual impression of the film more sloppy than chaotic.

For other alien invasion films, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Alien Trespass
Battleship
Battlefield Earth

5.5/10

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

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

The Predictability Of The Last Dream: Jacob’s Ladder

The Good: Some genuinely horrifying images, Decent acting, Interesting story
The Bad: Very predictable plot, Characters are hard to get into
The Basics: As a man wanders through the world that has suddenly become filled by nightmares, the viewer watched and enjoys watching Jacob's twisted journey.


Jacob’s Ladder is a movie I recall seeing previews for on television when I was still too young to go to see rated R movies in the theater and I somehow managed to never get around to seeing it until I bought my new television. I decided for the inaugural movie on my high definition television, I would pick up and watch Jacob’s Ladder finally and overall, I am quite glad I did.

Reading the back of the DVD case, however, is enough to almost ruin the supposed surprise twist of the end of the movie. In truth, fans of psychological horror or most fans of science fiction (the good stuff) will see the end to Jacob’s Ladder coming a mile away. Even so, I found myself enjoying the movie even though it went in exactly the direction I knew it was headed.

Jacob Singer, a Vietnam veteran, lives in New York City where he begins to suddenly experience waking nightmares. He has anxiety attacks, then sees faceless beings, demons, and even his son, who died years before. Unfortunately for Jacob, his reality continues to fracture and he finds himself waking up with his ex-wife Sarah and alternately waking up with his new mistress Jezebel. As his week goes on, Jacob finds himself plagued by greater and more horrifying demons and finding other veterans in a similar predicament.

Jacob’s Ladder is essentially a character study without any real significant character development. More than being about Jacob, the film is an exploration of the situation Jacob finds himself in. Ultimately, his decisions do not matter and who he allies himself with becomes inconsequential. The movie is actually more of an experience about circumstances.

It's hard to discuss Jacob’s Ladder without giving away the end or the fundamental premise. It's a movie that you need to trust the reviewer you're reading to simply take their word for it. If I'm that reviewer for you, thank you. Jacob’s Ladder is not a rational movie and it's not supposed to be. It is supposed to be a movie that freaks you out. It does so not by creating a horrifying set of circumstances or some sort of twisted villain, but rather by placing a fairly normal guy in a recognizable world and then twisting reality around him.

So, Jacob Singer is never a terribly compelling character. But, in truth, the movie works because he is not interesting. Because he is pretty much the everyman, Jacob becomes far less important than the things that surround him. And because of what the movie is truly about, this makes the film work. If Jacob were more interesting, if he were a superhero who could do extraordinary things, it would gut this movie.

Jacob is ably played by Tim Robbins who does an excellent job playing befuddled. Half the time, Jacob does not understand what is going on or why. Tim Robbins adequately portrays that. Robbins falls back from giving a performance that rules the movie and instead lets the environment take over by keeping his acting on the side of understated. Again that works quite well for the movie. And when Robbins needs to strongly emote, as he does in the final moments of the movie, he's there to give the performance what it needs to work.

The movie's special effects are actually impressive, even now. They create a truly creepy mood and the photography and intensity of the visual images is memorable, even more than the story being told.

I give a lot of credit to director Adrian Lyne for Jacob’s Ladder. This movie hinges a lot on the director's vision and it asks a lot of its audience in terms of suspension of disbelief. Lyne pulls it off by taking a script that is not filled with impressive dialogue or interesting characters and creates a movie that effectively manipulates the mood of the viewers through frightening imagery and ideas. Lyne does what is required in order to make the movie work and that's extraordinary in this case.

Ultimately, without giving anything away, Jacob’s Ladder is best described as a dream or a nightmare that the viewer willingly subjects themselves to. We follow Jacob Singer through the nightmare his life has become and as we are simply along for the ride, we are able to immerse ourselves in the terrifying place he finds himself and enjoy being frightened by the imagery as Jacob falls apart.

For other films that bend reality in a similar way, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Brazil
Sucker Punch
Inception

7/10

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

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Another Long Thinking-Persons Movie! Cradle Will Rock

The Good: Acting, Casting, Tapestry of plots, Ambiguity of message
The Bad: Moments of pacing (density)
The Basics: Another film that ought to have been contending for greater things in 1999, Cradle Will Rock is a character-driven tapestry of 1930s U.S.


Cradle Will Rock is potentially one of the greatest robberies in film history. No, it does not steal from other people's works or such, but in the races to win awards and receive recognition and an audience, it most certainly was robbed. It's ironic, considering the film is often about people standing up and acknowledging truths and greatness, that so few people stand up to praise the movie.

The film has a large scope and as such it often loses people, especially those who wish to see a movie without having to concentrate on it. The plots and characters weave around and play off each other. Nelson Rockefeller has chosen to have Diego Rivera paint the mural in the lobby of Rockefeller Center, which becomes problematic as the leftist artist incorporates images such as Lenin and syphilis into the work. WPA worker Hazel Huffman has rallied several anti-Communist artists to aid her in testifying against the WPA. One such artist is vaudeville ventriloquist Tommy Crickshaw, whose character arc is quite gripping. Largely the film plays around with Aldo Silvano and Olive Stanton, who are playing in a WPA play called "Cradle Will Rock," which is on the importance of Unions in America. Set against the play is a whole plot of steel tycoon Gray Mathers who is supplying Mussolini with steel.

The film is truly a tapestry and without knowing - or being able to appreciate - that, the viewer is lost. It's a complex film, especially as it says one thing and does another. For example, the play Cradle Will Rock is attempting to show the benefits of a union while the events surrounding the play lead to the Actor's Guild refusing to let the play be performed. If anything, the film is making the most potent argument about Unions ever: that they have their time and place, but their application is not universally beneficial to those who are a part of it. It's a story set in the 1930s, illustrating a concept that took much longer to be realized.

The acting is wonderful. All of the players get into their parts and portray the people they represent. Hank Azaria is wonderful as the delusional Marc Blitzstein, who writes Cradle Will Rock in the film. Harris Yulin gives a great performance and the briefly-seen Congressman Dies. All of the usual suspects: John Cusak, Joan Cusak, Philip Baker Hall, Vanessa Redgrave, Ruben Blades, John Turturro, and Emily Watson give their high caliber performance meeting or exceeding our expectations for their work. The true acting genius comes in the unlikely package of Bill Murray. In the surprise of the film, Bill Murray plays Tommy Crickshaw with a wonderful mix of self-loathing, abandonment and neediness. His character has surprising depth and I never thought I'd be saying he's the man to watch in a film with such talented actors as this.

While the film is not perfect, Cradle Will Rock comes quite close. Outside some historical references that are obscure, the film has moments where its purpose is unclear and it slows the pace. There are much worse uses of your time than this film and if you have children, I highly recommend this as an intelligent, engaging film. There are too few these days.

I must say, I'm impressed by the caliber of work Tim Robbins puts forth writing and directing Cradle Will Rock. This film was vastly underrated in a year of great films, most of which were overlooked.

For other powerful dramas, please visit my reviews of:
Magnolia
The Social Network
The Mission

8.5/10

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

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

| | |