Happy Fifth Anniversary To Me: You’ve Got Mail Is How I Spent (Part Of) It!

The Good: Concept, Final third of the movie, Acting is good
The Bad: Predictable, Drags in the middle
The Basics: After almost twenty years of avoiding it, my wife compelled me to watch You’ve Got Mail and I found it to be good, not great.


Tonight is my five year anniversary with my wife and as the night progresses, we’ve done all of the usual anniversary things (albeit out of order by conventional standards, I think). Tonight, she managed to get me to watch a movie that I think I had no interest in whatsoever and might even have boycotted at the time of its release (send me thousands of CD-ROMs in the mail over the years, AOL, I’ll boycott the film based on your catchphrase!). As it stands, it was not until tonight that I finally saw You’ve Got Mail. You’ve Got Mail is a thoroughly appropriate film for my wife and I for an anniversary (traditionally a time to reminisce about relationships beginning); she and I met on the internet and had a very short courtship before meeting in person, moving in together, and marrying! As such, the speed of the relationship in You’ve Got Mail did not seem at all off to me.

Despite any criticisms which might follow, You’ve Got Mail is better than I expected it to be. My preconception of the film was a cheesy romance film that largely featured two people sitting in front of their computers typing as opposed to interacting in person. The truth of You’ve Got Mail is that it accurately captures the early excitement of on-line relationships and ironically, had the movie focused more on that, it would have been a better film.

Opening with Kathleen Kelly, who is in a romantic relationship with the technophobic columnist Frank Navasky, excitedly e-mailing a mysterious stranger she met in an on-line chatroom for people over thirty, Kathleen’s life is at a turning point she does not yet know about. Unbeknownst to her, her on-line pen pal is Joe Fox, a businessman who is bringing a giant, discount book chain to New York City. Kelly, who inherited her mother’s children’s book store, tries not to see the arrival of Fox & Sons Books as a threat to her business. Joe and Kathleen meet one day at Kathleen’s book store while Joe is out with his (very) young brother and aunt (who, thanks to the family’s complicated geneology, is about twenty years younger than he is). While Joe and Kathleen continue to e-mail one another without knowing who the other is, when Kathleen learns who Joe is at a party, she takes an instant dislike to him.

On the advice of Joe (who does not have details about Kathleen’s specific business to know that he is operating against himself), Kathleen begins to wage a public relations campaign against Joe and his father’s mass-market bookstore. Unfortunately, the result is less-than-stellar and Kathleen has to close her book store. In the wake of Joe ruining her business, Kathleen and Joe begin to run into one another more frequently, with Joe learning that Kathleen is the woman he has been corresponding with on-line. Despite Joe dropping clues to Kathleen that he is her online suitor, Kathleen’s prejudice against Joe takes some time to burn off so their in-person romance can actually begin.

You’ve Got Mail suffers from being an erratic movie that seems to abandon its own premise instead of developing it. While usually, getting away from the film’s catchphrase conceit – in this case the e-mail relationship – would be smart and work well, with You’ve Got Mail, the opposite happens. The movie gets so caught up in the real world, adversarial relationship between Joe and Kathleen and their competing book stores and business philosophies that when the e-mail relationship is abruptly dropped and then equally abruptly picked up much later on in the movie, it feels like the film’s writers actually forgot what they were trying to say with the film.

As a result, You’ve Got Mail is a rare example of a film that has a vastly better final third than the rest of the movie. After mortgaging its premise for most of the airtime, the movie comes back to reassert its original idea in a good way . . . but almost too long after the viewer stops caring. In simpler terms, You’ve Got Mail would have been better if it had either dropped the e-mail relationship near the beginning and moved past that entirely or stuck with it more consistently. As it stands, the relationships become troublingly rendered on both fronts: Kathleen seems unnecessarily dim and Joe is presented with a weird dichotomy (he speaks like a sage, but is treated like a knave).

On the acting front, You’ve Got Mail is more a triumph for Meg Ryan than it is for Tom Hanks. The two play their roles of Kathleen and Joe without the trademark on-screen chemistry that made them box office draws when paired together in the late-90’s. That said, Ryan has a much perkier physical performance than in anything else I have seen her in. She bounces through the beginning of You’ve Got Mail in a watchable and cute way that sells her character (instead of making one feel like they are watching Meg Ryan). Tom Hanks plays Joe Fox with a seriousness and dryness that is compelling to watch. Hanks and Ryan play, as is predictable for a Nora Ephron film, with an incredible ensemble cast that includes Parker Posey (Joe’s initial girlfriend, Patricia), Greg Kinnear, Steve Zahn, Jean Stapleton, Dave Chappelle, and Katie Finneran.

Ultimately, You’ve Got Mail is an enjoyable romance film, but it does not have the timeless quality of some other romantic works from the 1990s and that makes it feel more dated and passé . . . just like AOL.

For other modern romantic movie classics, please check out my reviews of:
When Harry Met Sally . . .
Love, Actually
The American President

6.5/10

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.
| | |

Unnecessarily Divergent, Saving Mr. Banks Underwhelms.

The Good: Wonderful acting, Good direction
The Bad: Loathsome characters, Poor pacing, Unremarkable story
The Basics: Trying to bamboozle viewers through its release during Oscar Pandering Season, Saving Mr. Banks is an unremarkable movie masquerading as “great.”


Every now and then, Disney surprises me with one of its live action films. I think I was one of the few people who was truly charmed by The Odd Life Of Timothy Green (reviewed here!) when it made its debut over a year ago. And yet, that movie tapped into something in me that I found myself absolutely, unexpectedly enjoying the film. My point is that I have no innate prejudice against the live action works that come out of Disney studios. I write that at the outset of my review of Saving Mr. Banks because this time I find myself on the opposite side of many of the critics. While much of the media seems to be charmed by Disney’s latest live-action work, I found Saving Mr. Banks to be ponderous and dull.

I think it is worth noting, after making such an assertion that: 1. I have no familiarity with the history of the events upon which Saving Mr. Banks is based, 2. I cannot recall having ever seen Mary Poppins or having read any of the books upon which the film was based, and 3. I like movies about the creative process - Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) for example masterfully presents multiple layers of the creation and presentation of artistic works – and I can certainly handle films that feature two or more parallel storylines, like Cloud Atlas (reviewed here!). But Saving Mr. Banks is no Cloud Atlas and, in fact, it reminded me strongly of Julie And Julia (reviewed here!) and all of the problems that film had. In short, the fundamental problem with Saving Mr. Banks is that it tries to cram two stories into one and it does a disservice to both. In the case of Saving Mr. Banks, the film clumsily blends the story of the making of the film Mary Poppins with the genesis of the Mary Poppins character from the author’s childhood experiences.

In 1961, Polly Travers is living in London, doing her best to resist selling the rights to the book Mary Poppins, when her agent convinces her to take a meeting with Walt Disney in Los Angeles. Just as P.L. travels to Disney, Travers Goff once led his family from their home in Australia, with his wife and three children. Arriving in the outback, Travers convinces his wife Margaret that life will be an adventure and he encourages the children to use their imaginations. Arriving at Walt Disney’s office after finding herself unimpressed with the hotel and driver, P.L. Travers is resistant to the idea of a film adaptation – especially a musical – of Mary Poppins. After a direct appeal from Walt Disney, Travers and the writers begin doing a line reading – with music – of their script for the live-action Mary Poppins.

In Australia in the past, Travers inspires his daughter with his flights of fancy and imaginative perspective. Margaret finds herself overwhelmed and unhappy, especially when she does much of the work of raising the children and Travers has the benefit of bonding with the children more. The unhappy family relationship between the Goffs informs the viewer to the motivations of the cranky P.L. Travers, who is protecting her intellectual property beyond all reason, sense, and profitability. Fighting every step of the way, P.L. does everything she can to sabotage Walt Disney’s attempt to make his daughters’ favorite literary character come to life on the big screen.

It’s easy to see what the writers and director John Lee Hancock are trying to do with Saving Mr. Banks: they belabor establishing P.L. Travers as something of an immovable object while weaving in the explanations for why Travers is the way she is. The explanation is drawn-out and not particularly entertaining; Travers Goff is a drunk and lives in his own little world, to the detriment of the mental health of his wife. P.L. Travers is protective of her intellectual property for a simple reason; she was hurt by the harsh realities of life that her father did not prepare her for and she idolized her Aunt Ellie who came to help the family out when Travers Goth struggled to get sober.

Unfortunately, the explanation is more obvious from the outset than the writers and director would like the viewers to believe. While the first flashbacks are clunky, the leaps between present and past soon even out and the purpose of them becomes painfully obvious. Long before Ellie appears on screen, most viewers will be able to figure out where Saving Mr. Banks is going. Given that, much of Saving Mr. Banks seems unnecessarily drawn out. It makes P.L. Travers no more likable to see her horrible childhood belabored; one good, concise flashback could have gotten across the entire point of the sum of the flashbacks in Saving Mr. Banks.

On a character level, P.L. Travers is not compelling and it is hard to be sympathetic to Travers Goff (he’s not the first alcoholic who ruined his daughter’s life and his traumatizing of her is hardly the most extreme witnessed on screen). By contrast, the acting in Saving Mr. Banks is homogenously wonderful. Emma Thompson is brilliantly grumpy as P.L. Travers and when the writer is not being off-putting, Thompson brings a subtle vulnerability to the character that is well-portrayed. Colin Farrell is virtually unrecognizable as Travers Goff. Farrell is energetic without his trademark sense of irony or the spark of sadism that makes him such a wonderful actor for portraying unstable characters. In Saving Mr. Banks, Farrell proves himself to be a wonderful actor as he plays a part that could be exceptionally familiar for his known range, but he plays the role without any nods to any prior characters he has played. Tom Hanks brings his natural charisma to the role of Walt Disney and he is instantly likable in the part.

Saving Mr. Banks has a wonderful supporting cast as well. Paul Giamatti, a musical Bradley Whitford, the pairing of B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman, and the energetic appearance of Rachel Griffiths midway through the film all enhance an otherwise erratic and often-boring Saving Mr. Banks. The acting is of a wonderfully high caliber.

Unfortunately, the acting does not save the story and make Saving Mr. Banks any more enjoyable to watch.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
The Lone Ranger
Oz The Great And Powerful
John Carter
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Alice In Wonderland
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron

4/10

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.
| | |

Living Up To The Hype: Cloud Atlas Is Smart And Complex!

The Good: Wonderful acting, Great make-up and effects, Creative concept, Decent plots
The Bad: Misses some important events/deliberately obscure at points.
The Basics: Told in six distinct time periods, Cloud Atlas follows the reincarnated variations of several characters who interact to change and save the world or humanity through their actions, beliefs, or art.


When I miss a movie in theaters these days, there are remarkably few I pine for and make an immediate effort to see when they are released on DVD; it’s the nature of being a reviewer, there is always something new to see, review, and promote. So, when I missed Cloud Atlas theatrically, it says something about my level of interest that I managed to get it in to watch so soon after its DVD release. The truth is, it was a film I wanted very much to see and given how many preview trailers I saw of it, I was pleasantly surprised how much of the film there still was to be seen (it’s a long movie). In fact, my only gripe with the promotions for the film was that the key voiceovers that explain much of the thematic points and narrative structure were included in the trailers.

Cloud Atlas is based upon a novel that I have not read and thus this is a very pure review of the film alone. With Cloud Atlas, the Wachowskis have now redeemed themselves for Speed Racer (reviewed here!) and they once again prove they have the magic touch for making films that are visually incredible and tell stories about humans overcoming amazing odds and all forms of oppression. The film, however, is long and gory with a climax that sees the demise of so many of the characters that when I, in a moment of wonder at the movie, exclaimed, “How the hell did this movie ever lose money?!” my wife glared at me pretty heavily.

Cloud Atlas is a rare film that is not easy to discuss without giving away major spoilers. However, in defying my usual format, I won’t spoil virtually anything in the film by foregoing the usual plot summary. Cloud Atlas has an interwoven narrative structure that leaps very abruptly between six different time periods. As a result, there is little point trying to discuss any single narrative at length because one of the fundamental points of Cloud Atlas is that many of the main characters are related and interact as different incarnations of themselves in each of the different generations.

Told from the perspective of a man in the distant future, Cloud Atlas flashes back to and meanders through the intertwined stories of a lawyer who is part of a slaving mission and is being poisoned by the ship’s doctor on his way back home, a young composer studying at the feet of an aged composer who is not nearly as talented as he is, an investigative reporter digging into a story on a nuclear reactor in 1973 and all the corporate forces working to stop her from exposing the dangers of the facility, a publisher who is on the run from murderous hooligans when his previously unsuccessful author gains overnight success after killing a book critic, a cloned worked in the future who is given the chance to becomes something much more than she is when her “programming” fails, and a primitive man living on an island after what is essentially the apocalypse who must help a civilized woman reach the nearby ruins of the long-lost civilization, while avoiding cannibals and his own inner demons. Laced between the threads is a musical work that many of the characters create/remember/dream of or otherwise share and the themes of humans in oppressive situations fighting to overcome the political and social conditions that keep themselves and others enslaved.

Cloud Atlas is a film that demands to be watched as it is packed with details (like the idea that the clone in the future story is the deity worshipped in the most distant future timeline!) and the directors bounce between time periods assuming the viewers are keeping up. I liked how each time period had its own dialect and while that frustrated my wife, I found it engaging to sit and mentally translate the concepts both past and future. Cloud Atlas does not slow down to explain itself, but almost all of the keys one needs to understand the film are present on screen. In fact, the only glaring omission for me was that the disaster in the future that led to the technological reversion in the most distant time period was not shown.

What makes Cloud Atlas worth watching is simple; while it plays to the same old themes the Wachowskis (who co-wrote – or adapted – and directed Cloud Atlas with Tom Tykwer) are known for, they make the struggle for freedom and dignity feel fresh again. Visually, the film is a marvel with seamless CG animals, amazing sound effects and make-up that should have won many, many more awards than it did (never have so many great actors worked so hard to be utterly unrecognizable and not trade at all on their celebrity!). Cloud Atlas lives up to the heights one expects from the Wachowskis when it comes to the quality of making big, bold, films.

The real story of why to watch Cloud Atlas is in the way the directors get amazing performances out of the entire cast. While greatness is expected of Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent and Hugo Weaving, younger cast members like Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, James D’Arcy and Ben Whishaw hold their own with an apparently effortless ability. The cast is incredible and well-utilized (though poor Hugo Weaving needs to appear in a Wachowski film as something other than a villain!) and they are so engrossing in their performances that even for the recognizable actors, it is very easy to get drawn into their characters and forget anything outside the world of Cloud Atlas.

Ultimately, Cloud Atlas is engaging, clever and utilizes the film medium exceptionally well, making it well worth watching . . . more than once!

For other films with Jim Broadbent, be sure to check out my takes on:
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Inkheart
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe
Nicholas Nickleby
Gangs Of New York
Bridget Jones’s Diary
Smilla’s Sense Of Snow
Blackadder’s Christmas Carol
Brazil

8/10

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

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

About Ten Years Too Late: The Simpsons Movie Falls A Bit Flat

The Good: Moments of humor, Animation, DVD bonus features, Scale
The Bad: Pretty standard The Simpsons plot, No genuine character development
The Basics: The Simpsons Moviecomes to DVD with a look that captures well the 3-D feel of seeing the enhanced visuals on the big screen, but the same plot we've already seen.


[This review represents the final film review moved over from the other site that I used to write for! As such, all future film reviews will be brand new, and it explains the time notations in this review! Enjoy this retro review and keep checking back for new film reviews! Thanks for reading!]

I've been a bad, bad, fan of The Simpsons. When the film hit theaters last year, I simply did not prioritize it and it came and went before I saw it on the big screen. As I prepared to watch The Simpsons Movie, the new episode on Fox involved a parody of Melrose Place and as I sat watching it, I thought "well, that's about ten years past being relevant." Like any number of people, I would have thought that The Simpsons would have cashed in on its popularity when it was more popular, about ten years ago and released The Simpsons Movie then.

Instead, Matt Groening and his creative team kept focused on the television series and continued to develop episodes without exploiting the wallets of fans for the big screen presentation until the audience for the series began to dwindle and The Simpsons pretty much ran out of fresh plotlines. I mean, I've loved The Simpsons, but it has pretty much settled into a rut wherein Homer gets into some amount of trouble, Marge either puts up with it or kicks him out as a result of it and they remember their past together and fall back in love by episode's end. Occasionally, there is an episode wherein Bart gets in trouble or Lisa does something impressive. The Simpsons Movie follows in exactly that format, essentially combining the main recurring plots of The Simpsons into one cinematic event.

The Simpson family arrives late at church one Sunday where Reverend Lovejoy is opening the floor up to parishioners when Grampa Simpson has an episode where he prophecies a coming apocalypse. Marge, naturally, is concerned, but the rest of the family quickly goes on doing its own thing with Homer and Bart daring one another to do stupid things - like Bart skateboarding to the Kwikie Mart and back naked -, Lisa petitioning the neighbors to clean up Lake Springfield when she meets an environmentally conscious boy, and Grampa disappearing in the rug he was rolled up in. Lisa is successful in getting the lake protected and a barrier is put up around it, which is when Homer gets a pig.

Bart, neglected by Homer, turns to Flanders for parental attention and he discovers life without being strangled for his mistakes. Homer and his pig hang out, despite Marge believing that the pig is the first part of Grampa's prophecy. When Homer disposes of his silo full of pig feces in Lake Springfield, the toxicity of the Lake gets the attention of the EPA. Russ Cargill, the head of the EPA, meets with President Schwarzeneggar and alerts him to the crisis, leading them to seal Springfield in a giant glass dome. When the residents of Springfield discover it was Homer's handiwork that led to the consequence of the dome, the people form an angry mob and the Simpsons escape through a sinkhole to the outside world. There, they flee to Alaska until a public service ad featuring Tom Hanks insinuates that Springfield is about to be blown off the map and Marge takes the kids to go prevent its imminent destruction.

The irony of The Simpsons Movie comes from contrasting it to the much-maligned Family Guy Presents: The Stewie Griffin Story (reviewed here!). Critics of the Family Guy straight-to-DVD movie tended to lambaste the film because it was essentially three episodes of Family Guy carefully crafted together into one longer piece. The Simpsons Movie does essentially the same thing with five acts that feel very much like segmented episodes: Bart and Homer having a dare contest, Homer and his beloved pig, the sealing off of Springfield, the Alaska adventure and the rescue of Springfield. And like virtually all episodes of The Simpsons, each of these main plots has a subplot: prophecy, Lisa's romance, Bart and Flanders, the continued plight of Springfield, and Homer and Marge reconciling.

The problem is, on the plot and character fronts, there is nothing truly new in The Simpsons Movie. This is very much a typical "Homer makes a big mistake" type episode and the only significant difference is the visual scale. The Simpsons Movie is enhanced with several 3-D backgrounds and computer generated animations that are fully three dimensional. Even on the small screen, watching the big-screen effect of things like the mob scene with virtually everyone in Springfield advancing upon the Simpsons with torches is impressive. Visually the film is spectacular and lush in a way that The Simpsons never has been on television.

In the effects department, the producers utilize well the film medium, but this is pretty much the only extraordinary aspect of the film. Indeed, the only other thing that distinguishes The Simpsons Movie from an episode of The Simpsons on television is a brief shot of Bart's penis. Beyond that, there is nothing extraordinary or different about the film that viewers have not seen by watching any one of five episodes of the series.

So, as one might expect, there are guest stars. Russ Cargill is voiced by Albert Brooks (who appeared in some of the earliest episodes of the series), Tom Hanks and Green Day appear as themselves and the celebrity guest stars add a feeling of continuity to the film that allows the viewer to recall what drove them to watch some of the weaker seasons of the television show.

But the film is no funnier than the series has been of late. I laughed aloud . . . twice. Maggie takes on Krusty's monkey and . . . you know, I don't even remember what the other time was. I know I laughed when Cargill mentioned he was the first EPA head to actually meet with a President, but I cannot honestly recall if that was in the film or just the deleted scenes. Because otherwise, the film falls very much into the rut of the episodes that have Marge and Homer on the outs because of his stupidity. And when you've watched well over three hundred episodes and many of The Simpsons plots are involved with that, it leaves the viewer feeling slightly cheated.

Where fans of the series will not feel cheated is in the character detailing and the DVD bonus features. So, for example, the writers - who work on the show, so they ought to know - include details like Maggie being rather smart and also having a slightly violent streak to her, which has come out in several episodes. Also, fans will appreciate the continuity of Homer and Marge dancing to "Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear" on their wedding video, which illustrates a great respect for the fans who have supported the show for almost two decades.

The DVD bonus features support quite well the average-at-best film. There are deleted scenes and about five frames cut out of the ending restored as a "slightly alternate ending", five different trailers and teasers for the movie, and guest appearances by The Simpsons (mostly Homer) on The Tonight Show, American Idol, etc. The real treat for fans will be that The Simpsons Movie has two levels of commentary wherein Matt Groening talks about The Simpsons and The Simpsons Movie in a very entertaining and informative way and one where the director discusses the film and provides a great deal of detail into how the movie was made. Fans will likely get a kick out of these features and their inclusion does add more value than the promotional spots for new episodes of The Simpsons and the Futurama straight-to-DVD movie "Bender's Big Score," which are also on the disc.

But ultimately, these features are not truly enough to sell a very average movie to those who are not already fans of The Simpsons. The film, the DVD bonuses, they are designed as a gift-that-you-pay for to the fans and those who are not die-hard fans of The Simpsons might be amused, at best, to watch the movie, but it's not one to be added to the permanent collection. My "recommend" is ultimately a very weak one and it is solely a "watch it once" type recommendation. Those looking for something great and truly hilarious will not find it here.

If only they had released this about ten years ago; before we had watched a decade of virtually the same thing, then it might have been as fresh as it could have been.

For other reviews of The Simpsons stuff, check out my takes on:
The Simpsons - Season 1
2009 Mr. Plow Hallmark ornament
Flaming Moe Energy Drink

5.5/10

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

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

Is Britain For Me? Not If The Dull The Queen Is Any Indication!

The Good: Acting
The Bad: Lack of compelling plot, Dull characters, Pacing is deathly slow
The Basics: Dull, plodding along and essentially British, The Queen has inspired performances but little else, including a lack of entertainment or educational value.


Every now and then I have a feeling I am watching a film that is too soon, too specific and too weird for my comprehension in relation to the rest of the world. When The Queen began to get rave reviews by almost every critic I could find, I began to wonder what was so great about the movie. All I knew about it was that the film was about Queen Elizabeth (II, the current one) and how she reacted to the death of Princess Diana when Di was killed in the late '90s in a car accident as a result of being chased by the paparazzi. Sadly, the plot is grossly overstated in such a phrasing.

Shortly after Tony Blair is elected Prime Minister of England and assumes the reins of government, he finds himself deeply intertwined with the royal family when Princess Diana abruptly dies in a car accident. Blair begins to express his sorrow for the nation's loss while the Queen remains publicly silent on the issue. The Queen decides that the grief the family feels ought to be kept private and that because Princess Diana no longer was a royal (following her divorce from Charles), she was not entitled to royal treatment and/or burial. While Blair and Prince Charles try to convince her to adapt to changing times, the Queen spends a week debating whether or not to address the public about the death of Diana.

The entire plot is the belaboring of a decision and as an American, it's terribly hard to see the appeal of a film where someone takes a week to make up their mind as to whether to speak or not. Already I envision the next Morgan/Frears hit wherein the Queen Mother spends a week deciding whether or not to eat a cookie. As cruel as it may sound, the belaboring of the decision feels analogous in The Queen. The Queen is clinging to tradition and the reticence that is befitting her post. I can dig that as a character aspect, but making a movie over people's reaction to grief seems dull and cheesy for a real-life event so close to it (and timed so appropriately to the descent of Tony Blair).

The reticence of the Queen makes the British people begin once again to doubt the necessity of the monarchy and, again, as an American, I find the whole debate pointless and silly. Even more unfortunate in both reality and in the film is the way decisions are all absolutes. I'm going to ignore reality from here on out (this is a historical fiction/drama, more than a documentary and simply by the way some of the scenes are filmed there are obvious extrapolations) and simply focus on the film, so when I talk about characters, live with it, please. The characters in The Queen are caught in ridiculous dialectics where everything is framed in black and white and the damage this does to the story is extensive.

The Queen is obsessed with maintaining tradition and the badge of office. Tony Blair is concerned with keeping the citizenry on his side and he savvily observes their moods and understands their need to express their grief. But the movie soon degenerates into ridiculous and pointless debates about protocol and the belaboring making a decision. Blair counsels the Queen to speak to the British people, she resists.

I suppose to the British, this sort of thing is important, but I tend to live with the idea that I do not need others to tell me how to feel (or suggest how I ought to cope). As a result, the hours it takes in real time and the days it takes cinematically for this decision to be made feels like a waste of time.

But then there's the real problem; the Queen goes through this immense and pointless debate for one reason: she is clinging to tradition and as such seeks to maintain the power of the throne. Why then does she eventually capitulate on all fronts? The people want a flag flown at half-mast above the palace; the flag is only flown when the royals are home. As a result, when they go on holiday in the country, there's no flag flown. Even if the Queen capitulates to appearing before the British people, why doesn't she just explain, "This is how the flag works. Live with it." Instead, the whole debate becomes pointless when what she seeks to protect through her reticence is gutted by her complete capitulation.

No wonder the British lost respect for their monarch.

The purpose of debating the entire lack of plot of The Queen is that the film is plot-heavy with no plot (decision belabored; that's what the movie is about) and to illustrate the fact that The Queen is not entertaining. It's not terribly enlightening; I could have read a magazine article, a newspaper article, or a one-paragraph blog that would have told me all of the key information presented in this film and lost nothing and saved a couple of hours.

But then, I would not have had the crazy-boring British experience.

I also would not have been able to watch Helen Mirren perform. Mirren plays The Queen and her performance outshines the character. I had recently seen Mirren in The Clearing (reviewed here!) and Painted Lady (reviewed here!) and what impressed me about this movie was that her portrayal of the Queen was so dramatically different from her performance in either other movie that it astonished me to think she was the same actress. If one must watch a woman working to make a decision on screen for a couple of hours, this would seem to be the actress to do it.

The real winner is actor Michael Sheen who plays Tony Blair and who holds his own opposite Mirren. In all honesty, all of the fuss over Mirren as the Queen led to a neglect of Sheen. I've seen a great deal of footage of Blair and Sheen has him pegged. He looks like him (enough), sounds like him and carries himself with the same posture and self-assured body language. The movie makes Blair out as the reasonable hero and Sheen embodies that perfectly. Sheen is so good in this that he redeems himself for appearing in Underworld (reviewed here!).

On DVD, there was a commentary track and previews (sorry, I cannot say how decent the commentary was as I was so bored with the movie that I wasn't about to rewatch it to hear British people blather on more about it). The packaging is nice, though.

In all, though, The Queen benefited from the hype that surrounded it, but it ends up as a film that has great actors playing marginal characters in a situation so dull as to make it difficult to believe it was put on screen. It certainly did not deserve to be nominated for Best Picture; fortunately, it did not win.

For other works with Helen Mirren, check out my reviews of:
Glee - Season 3
Inkheart
The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy
Gosford Park

4/10

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

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

| | |

Waiting For The End And A Purpose: The Terminal Leaves Me Unimpressed.

The Good: Likable protagonist, Generally good acting, Interesting initial plot
The Bad: Ridiculous turn of antagonist, Pacing, Plummets into boring
The Basics: As a man caught in an administrative crack, Viktor Navorski is forced to live in an airport, with consequences that quickly become dull and uncompelling in The Terminal.


It is easy to see, after the first half hour of The Terminal why this movie did not generate boatloads of money to help United Airlines. According the the trivia before the movies open, Steven Spielberg has been quoted as saying "Most movies have a beginning and just keep beginning." Spielberg doesn't know when to end movies. Like A.I. (reviewed here!), The Terminal drags on and on after the first half hour, begging the viewer to ask "Why am I still sitting here?"

The Terminal begins with real potential, more than I would have thought. Viktor Navorski arrives at JFK Airport in New York City and learns that his nation has become engulfed in a civil war. As a result, there is no legitimate nation of Krakozha and thus his passport is no longer a legal passport. Without a legal passport, he may not get a visa to enter the United States and he is forced to reside within the confines of the airport terminal.

Navorski is sentenced to live in the terminal by Frank Dixon, a field agent with the Department of Homeland Security. Dixon is simply doing his job, which is waiting out the Krakozhian civil war so that Navorski may either return home or enter the United States. The main problem with the film develops when Dixon becomes obsessed with Navorski's presence. Navorski is not harming anyone, he is not a nuisance in any real way, and is not even terribly conspicuous. Dixon becomes determined to pass the Navorski problem onto someone else, though Navorski is not a problem anyone would notice except the Department of Homeland Security.

For example, at JFK, there is are carts that may be used to aid passengers in transporting their luggage. Unfortunately, most people do not bring the carts back to their designated areas. So, there is a system that rewards those who do bring the carts back with a quarter. Navorski soon realizes that if he rounds up the carts and returns them all, he can make enough money to buy food at the Burger King within the terminal. Dixon sees Navorski doing this and, rather than tacitly approve of it, he thwarts Navorski's efforts by hiring a new staffmember whose sole job is to return the carts to where they belong. Dixon's determination to rid the terminal of Navorski climaxes in the most over-the-top way and then senselessly disappears.

In short, The Terminal suffers greatly from a forced antagonist that, in the final analysis, makes little to no sense. And the film does not need a man vs. man conflict, the piece would work extraordinarily well as a man vs. society piece. But Dixon does not simply represent the overbearing society created by the Department of Homeland Security, he reveals personal ambition and a serious emotional stake in getting rid of Navorski.

And then there's the romantic subplot. While residing in the airport, Navorski falls for a flight attendant named Amelia. The relationship between Navorski and Amelia is far less interesting than the relationships Navorski makes to survive in the airport, like his relationship with janitor Gupta.

What does work is the acting. Catherine Zeta-Jones is well-used as Amelia and she manages to not steal the scenes she is in. In fact, it is more a movie displaying the talents of Stanley Tucci. Whatever the faults with the character of Frank Dixon, Tucci portrays him well and with as much consistency as the script will allow. Tucci plays reasonable very well and, while it is inconsistent with the established character, he is able to make over-the-top anger seem very realistic.

The film rests on Tom Hanks, though and he delivers as usual. Hanks appears somewhat bloated and only slips out of character once when yelling. The majority of the movie, he looks like Ed O'Ross (Nikolai from Six Feet Under) and his transformed body language and accent work quite convincingly to establish his character.

Even Hanks cannot save The Terminal, though. The idea is not bad, but the execution of it is. Spielberg and the film's writers try to create intrigue by providing Navorski with a reason for wanting to come to New York City, clouding it in the peanut can he carries with him constantly. The problem is, by the time we learn what is in the can, it is almost impossible to care. The movie has stretched on for far too long.

And once we do learn why Navorski is in New York City, it makes even less sense that he would be willing to stay in the terminal as opposed to making a run for the City outside. The last half hour of the movie is an uncompelling plodding experience to try to resolve all of the plot and character aspects introduced earlier in the movie. The problem is, by the time they start to be resolved, Dixon is ridiculously villainous and the rest of the aspects seem far too removed from our interest to be compelling.
The Terminal lures the viewer in with a deceptively good beginning that quickly takes a turn toward the boring and ultimately the disappointing. There are better Spielberg and Hanks films. There are a lot of movies that are better. Period.

For other films with Zoe Saldana, please check out my reviews of:
Columbiana
Avatar
Star Trek

4.5/10

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

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

Documentaries With Agendas To Save The World: Who Killed The Electric Car?

The Good: Excellent source of information, Intriguing, Easy to watch, Somewhat entertaining
The Bad: Light on supporting evidence, Belabors point, Does not offer solutions
The Basics: Who Killed The Electric Car? is an average documentary with a great deal of information, a lot of opinion, but not enough vision.


I have a friend who works at the local library who spends a bit of his day debating or conversing with me whenever I show up to use the library's computer or return the bevy of media products I have out. He's a cool guy and he's always looking out for things that he thinks might intrigue me. Recently, he handed me a copy of Who Killed The Electric Car? and told me that when he watched it, the first thing he thought of was sharing it with me. This guy's tapped into issues that I care about.

Following a progressive California law passed in the early 1990s, GM began producing an electric car called the EV-1. As infrastructure rose to support the use of electric cars in California, GM and other car companies in California quietly lobbied for the death of the new vehicle and a maintenance of the status quo. What followed was a short, intense battle between the auto manufacturers, the celebrities and other leasees who had EV-1s and the California State Legislature along with municipal governments throughout the state.

Haven't heard of all of this? That's not surprising. One of the things Who Killed The Electric Car? does quite well is expose the apathy to the debate over the electric car. Writer/Director Chris Paine simply articulates the almost complete disregard and lack of strategy GM had for adapting to the California law. The law basically stated that in order to do business in California, car manufacturers had to have a percentage (somewhere around 10%) of their fleet be zero emission/electric cars within a decade. GM's solution was to instantly create an electric car, then do very little to promote the vehicle while their lobbyists fought the law mandating their existence.

Yes, this is the rhetorical equivalent of the child who is upset because mommy and daddy tell him to eat his vegetables slowly moving peas around his plate while denying that he should have to eat any. Who Killed The Electric Car? exposes the auto industry as pawns of the oil industry, stagnant in their complacency to innovate or affect real change in the world. This documentary exposes a fight few people knew ever happened and it becomes a valuable tool for defeating the rabidly anti-environmental forces that continue to destroy the atmosphere, create products that perpetrate the trade deficit, and encourage a U.S. presence in unstable areas of the world (like the Middle East) due to the crippling economic motivation to remain there.

Paine, through narrator Martin Sheen, smartly exposes the players in GM and the government whose actions and/or complacency allowed the car lobby to overturn a law which would have led to real change. The existence and popularity of the electric car barely made waves outside of California so for those of us living in the rest of the country, this documentary provides valuable information for promoting a discussion to raise automobile standards and enacting similar initiatives in the future. Interviews in the documentary include a bevy of celebrities, including Ed Begley Jr. and Mel Gibson who discuss their affinity for the EV-1 and detail the difficulties in obtaining one.

The star witness for the EV-1 is a woman who worked for GM whose love of the EV-1 led her to the innovative strategy of drumming up interest in the EV-1 among prominent celebrities who could raise the profile of the vehicle. It is through her that much of the information on GM and its lack of promotion of the electric car is presented and she seems both credible and articulate on the issue.

The problems with Who Killed The Electric Car? come in the form of the celebrities and this star witness. While Paine illustrates well the fight in California and with GM over the EV-1, he drops the ball on why the other states considering laws like California dropped them. While Paine illustrates the ability for the industry to form an infrastructure around the electric cars, he fails to present enough information to convince those on the fence as to why it was worth so much to kill the electric car as opposed to supporting the existing, growing infrastructure for them. The only answer Who Killed The Electric Car? seems to give is that the oil industry wanted it this way, so the electric car was killed.

But more than that, the techniques used by the director and the subjects of the documentary can come across as downright silly. Only in California, many viewers will say, would there be a line of protesting celebrities fighting for a car no one had heard of. Seeing one of the actresses from "Baywatch" holding signs and passionately fighting for her recalled car airs less like activism and more like a quirky luxury. After all, it must be nice to have the time to hold a vigil outside the GM parking lot without fear of starving to death.

The problem here is that the film might answer the title question of the movie, but it leaves so very many obvious questions dangling before the viewer that it does not even bother to address. So, for example, when GM released the EV-1, it would only lease the vehicles. As Who Killed The Electric Car? illustrates, this allowed GM to later recall the vehicles when the leases expired and destroy them. Anyone who is watching this film with a modicum of debate skills or even a portion of a brain is forced to wonder why the lawmakers were not brought back in to change the law stating that X% of the electric cars had to be SOLD in the state of California. Certainly there were groups lobbied to thwart the law that existed, but the whole idea that the California State Legislature had already PASSED such a measure meant that they would have been biased toward improving said law and making sure it succeeded. Who Killed The Electric Car? completely ignores this concept and rhetorical point.

But for all of its high-minded talk, the issue is very much past tense. While the celebrities involved in supporting the EV-1 watch their vehicles being taken away and destroyed, they ultimately do very little. One person is arrested for trying to block the convoy. But the buck stops there. There are no chases, none of the EV-1 owners flee with their electric car outside the range and jurisdiction of GM's recalls. My point here is that the whole issue seems silly for two reasons: 1. It's pretty much been effectively buried and 2. The greatest supporters of the EV-1 went only so far, they risked something, but not everything for the goal they were fighting for.

Still, Who Killed The Electric Car? remains a valuable resource for those who believe in the importance of energy efficiency and the necessity of saving the environment through smarter automobile standards. This is a must watch for those looking to create the guidelines by which electric cars, more fuel efficient vehicles, and alternate fuel vehicles may be created through legislation or business initiative. Even when the film falls down rhetorically on the debate and the concepts driving the fight for the EV-1 and the environment, it is almost always informative.

For other documentaries, please check out my reviews of:
Shut Up And Sing
Wal-Mart: The High Cost Of Low Price
An Inconvenient Truth

6.5/10

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

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Seeing Everything With Childlike Simplicity: Forrest Gump Endures!

The Good: Heartwrenching in character, Excellent Acting, Fine Direction
The Bad: Slow through much of the film, Wandering Plot
The Basics: Charming and complex, Forrest Gump tells a wonderful story about a simple man in a changing world.


Perhaps one of the most appropriately awarded acting awards in the past two decades was Tom Hanks' Best Actor Oscar for Forrest Gump. Why? It truly does illustrate greatness for such an intelligent man to play, so flawlessly, a simpleton like Forrest.

Forrest Gump, the film and the character, begins on a bench waiting for a bus, telling person after person the story of his life. Almost immediately, it becomes clear that Forrest is special, in more ways than one. Telling the story of his childhood where he was beaten up because of his lack of intelligence by local boys in Alabama, Forrest relates how he went from running away from jerks to playing football to joining the U.S. Army, to playing ping pong professionally to becoming the owner of a fleet of shrimp boats to running across country several times. Along the way, he receives accolades from presidents and finds himself in the company of various awkward characters, including Bubba in the Army, Dan Taylor, Gump's Commanding Officer in Vietnam, and Mrs. Gump, Forrest's supportive mother. Throughout, Forrest's witless adventures interweave with those of Jenny, who epitomizes the lack of innocence of the times. In the late fifties, she poses for Playboy, in the sixties, she is a hippie, in the seventies, she is heavy in the drug culture, and in the eighties, she dies of what may be inferred as AIDS.

Forrest Gump is a pretty rich film fleshing out well the changing times of U.S. life over four decades with its protagonist barely appearing to age at all. Perhaps that's the magic of the film, the timeless quality to Forrest in contrast to the dated fashions of Jenny.

Of course, some would say that the magic of this film is in its seamless insertions of Forrest into historic events. He is at the University of Alabama when it is desegregated, he meets - and we see him with - Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. The effects whereby he is placed on known historical footage is quite incredible. And it works well.

Forrest Gump is an interesting character and an excellent example of how how other people react to a character defines who they are. Indeed, Forrest describes what he sees and more often we learn about him by how people react to him. And there's irony there: for example as Forrest tells his story, a young nurse - who we must suppose is compassionate - is rushed and does not listen to Forrest, whereas an elderly lady - for whom time must be a commodity at her age - sits and listens to Forrest with eager anticipation.

Indeed, the only real problem is how much the writer and director attempt to fit into the film. Too many sections of Forrest Gump feel long. So much happens in the first fifteen minutes that afterward, the viewer is anticipating more events in rapid succession. Instead, Forrest's military career is belabored. His thoughts on Jenny take a long time to develop and when it's not slow, it seems to wander pointlessly. Or perhaps aimlessly is a better word.

Even with those problems, the acting still makes it worth the price of admission alone. Tom Hanks is not the only person giving a great performance. Sally Field does a great job as Forrest's mother, as Mykelti Williamson does well fleshing out Bubba as someone different than Forrest but with some sense of being a kindred spirit. But the man who makes all of his scenes worth watching is Gary Sinise. He plays Lieutenant Dan with a wonderful mixture of resentment and fury that keeps us glued on him.

All in all, there's something here for everyone. There's humor, occasionally. There's romance, war loss, tragedy and, in the end, love. This is possibly the ultimate story of how love can take a lifetime to be realized. If only it didn't feel that long!

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

For other works featuring Tom Hanks, please check out my reviews of:
Toy Story 3
Charlie Wilson’s War
Philadelphia

7.5/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

A Case For Philadelphia

The Good: Excellent acting, Good characters, Good plot, Good direction, Excellent themes.
The Bad: Predictable, Some pacing issues
The Basics: An all-around excellent cast with good direction and a progressive message float Philadelphia through its slow points and obvious nature.


After years of watching and enjoying The Practice, I decided it was time to sit down and watch Philadelphia, which, despite the hype surrounding it still, is just a courtroom drama film. And as far as courtroom dramas go, it's a very good one.

Philadelphia centers around Andrew Beckett, who is played by Tom Hanks, who is terminated from his job at a high priced law firm. Beckett suspects it is the result of him having AIDS and one of the senior partners recognizing that, a suspicion leapt to when an exceptionally important case file disappears only to reappear seconds before the trial is to begin. Beckett hires Joe Miller to represent him in a wrongful termination suit against the firm. What follows is a courtroom drama without any twists or turns or real surprises.

Part of that is the problem. While the film expertly sways from the courtroom action to the character struggles and epiphanies both plod along predictably. That's not to say they aren't interesting, but it is to say they are unsurprising. The moment Miller's prejudices are revealed, it becomes clear it's one of "those films," that is a film with a message. It's a laudable message, but it's still laid on very thick and it's predictable where the film is going.

Surprisingly, considering Hanks gets so much credit for the film (which he deserves), the story is focused on Joe Miller, who is played by Denzel Washington. Washington gives an excellent performance and deserved an award for his portrayal. While his character arc was predictable, Washington played Miller well, with subtlety and distinction. It was more than well written, the direction captured perfectly the expressions in Washington's face and eyes that are hallmarks of great acting.

Outside the obvious social importance of a film decrying the prejudices that exist between the white heterosexual male populace (or financial) majority and pretty much every other group on earth, Philadelphia does it well, mostly because it does it consistently and it has a very real feel to it. The movie exposes the questions that lie at the heart of the prejudice and articulates them openly. For that it ought to be commended.

The only drawback on the entertainment front is, surprisingly, in the courtroom. As a fan of The Practice it's very difficult to watch the inside of the courtroom being so stark, tensionless, and downright slow. The pacing of the epiphanies in Miller's life come with delightful precision and timing, but that same gentle ebb works less well for the dramatics of a courtroom.

Certainly a worthwhile film with an ending that's both satisfying and pyrrhic.

For other courtroom films, please check out my reviews of:
The Social Network
The Life Of Emile Zola
Flash Of Genius

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for a complete listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

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



| | |

Aaron Sorkin's Return To Cinematic Enterprises: The Process Story Charlie Wilson's War Is Good.

The Good: Generally good acting/casting, Plot, Characters, Surprisingly good use of footage/effects, Presentation
The Bad: Clunky in parts, Feels short, Sense of time is skewed, Light on DVD bonus features.
The Basics: A good bet for anyone who loves political process stories this season, Charlie Wilson's War is a solid film that will entertain and inform!


On The West Wing," occasionally characters will mention what Leo McGarry once says early on: "There are two things you never want people to see how you make: laws and sausages." It seems strange, then, that writer Aaron Sorkin would follow his admirable television failure Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip with a screen adaptation of a process story. In Charlie Wilson's War, we are treated not to how laws are made but how influence is bought and sold and the dramatic influence of one lone Congressman.

From the first moment characters begin speaking in Charlie Wilson's War, this glows as one of the written works of Aaron Sorkin, whose dialogue is characterized by a fast paced back and forth usually on topics that are tangential to the main storyline. Between dazzling audiences with The West Wing and his more recent success, The Social Network (click here for that review), Sorkin wowed a smaller audience with Charlie Wilson's War. So when a flashback begins with Congressman Charlie Wilson sitting in a hot tub naked with three women and a man who are doing cocaine, being pitched a "Dallas in Washington television series idea," it feels immediately like pure Sorkin. Despite the esoteric mix of verbal humor and historic high drama that follows, much of Charlie Wilson's War does not have the Sorkin flavor to it and I am surprised (and delighted) to find I enjoyed it as much as I did with that being the case!

Charlie Wilson, six-term U.S. Congressman from the Texas 2nd Congressional District in 1980, through happenstance watches a report on the news on troops from Afghanistan resisting the Soviet Union's advance and military takeover of their country. Desperate to thwart communism, Wilson becomes curious about what would happen to the Soviet Union if Afghanistan could effectively resist and as he sits on the Congressional subcommittees involving financing the Defense Department and the CIA's covert budget, he is soon informed that he is the perfect man to arrange to adequately fund the operations needed to win a war with the Soviet Union through Afghanistan.

Pressured to take action by one of his chief campaign financiers, Joanne Herring, Wilson is introduced to CIA Agent Gust Avrakotos, the pointman on the Afghanistan project because his troubled tenure with the Agency has left him with nothing better to do. Suddenly in the hot seat, Gus (as Wilson calls him) introduces Wilson to weapons experts, strategists and becomes a vital part of Wilson's negotiations with leaders in Pakistan, Israel, and Egypt to secure enough weapons and a covert way to get them into Afghanistan to allow the Afghan people to begin shooting down the Soviet Union's armor-plated helicopters and turn the tide of battle against the Communist forces.

While Gust and Wilson are negotiating and arm-twisting politicians and world leaders, Joanne is raising funds to keep Wilson in his congressional seat. Wilson's past as a congressman of low moral character (he accepts a position on the Ethics committee purely to get the favor of being named to the board of the Kennedy Center so he can get free tickets to events there to take dates!) soon catches up with him and while he is working on arming a secret war, he is deeply involved with protecting his own reputation and surviving as a congressman!

I shall note here two very important things: 1. This is a review of the film Charlie Wilson's War. It is not a review of the book, not a commentary on the reality upon which it is based (which I am largely ignorant of) and therefore anything that might be included in the former and omitted from the latter is not my concern. This is a movie and while it references real events, it is being portrayed as a work of historical fiction as opposed to a documentary. Thus "characters" are the characters in the film and how they work as cinematic characters. 2. I am a known liberal and a pacifist (quite proudly). I am one who stands against the pseudo-patriotic flag-waving and drum beating that followed the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States of America. And the best possible statement I can make about how well-written and how well-directed Charlie Wilson's War was is this: the moment an Afghan freedom fighter launches his first rocket and takes out a Soviet helicopter, I let out a small cheer (fortunately the theater was almost entirely empty, which is very sad on another level).

Charlie Wilson's War is very much ingrained with the process of political machinations that change the world. It's stunning to consider that Charlie Wilson is one of 435 congresspeople and that his focus on this single issue is mirrored by 434 other people on other issues. It's amazing the world isn't changed entirely by the machinations of congress, save that the idealists are often weeded out before elections and their ambitions are (sometimes fortunately!) kept in check by the Senate. This is completely relevant to an exploration of this film because of the whole plot involving Joanne.

Joanne is a woman who uses religion and money to influence politics and the true tragedy of the film comes in the very last scene before the return to the "present day" of the film. Joanne is portrayed throughout the film as a woman of wealth, influence and principle and she knows how to use money and the idea of morals to influence others with power. The failure that comes at the end of the movie, wherein $1,000,000 is denied to Charlie Wilson is well within the means of Joanne Herring. That private financiers like her did not step up when the government failed is disturbing and baffling.

In the context of the film, this is even more troubling than in reality, as Joanne is portrayed consistently as a woman who delights in using her influence and flexing her muscle. That the character delights in foiling the communists, but exhibits no responsibility in the aftermath undermines the good she does, which is the subtle commentary of the film, which is made not at all subtle in the end. Indeed, attentive viewers who are politically involved now will easily note that many of the names thrown around as potential allies who were armed by the United States are now people we have listed as enemies in our current wars.

Again, as someone who is not a September 11th rally fanatic, it speaks to the quality of the movie that when Gust and Charlie take a few minutes to contemplate what the effect of their machinations might be, the film stops with a shot squarely on Charlie's face and we hear a jet turbine that seems remarkably specific . . .

The characters in Charlie Wilson's War are surprisingly well fleshed out given that the film is only 97 minutes long! There are four essential characters (most would say only three, but . . .) who run the efforts to change the world through toppling the Soviet regime via Afghanistan: Bonnie, Joanne, Gust and Charlie.

Bonnie is Charlie's congressional aide, his right hand and his conscience. She is efficient, completely human and essential to keeping Charlie grounded. She heads a staff of congressional aides to the womanizing Charlie that look like Hollywood bombshells, yet are eminently qualified at their tasks as can be seen as they try to neutralize the investigation into Wilson's stripper friends. Bonnie is played by Amy Adams and she does quite well playing off the big three celebrities in the piece. As a nod to his work on The West Wing, Sorkin's inclusion of Bonnie continues the long tradition of incredibly useful and underpaid assistants to those in power.

Joanne is a fiercely independent woman who has connections on Capitol Hill that are so extensive that she knows within hours about changes to the covert budgets. She is a personal friend of Pakistan's President Zia and she knows the soft points of all the people in power, how to exploit what they believe for her desired goals. She loathes communism (possibly because of her own fabulous wealth) and works to keep money flowing into politicians she likes, leaving them indebted to her. As well, she has a soft side, specifically for Charlie. In tender moments, away from the politics, she is characterized as a woman who has wounds she struggles to hide and a flirtatious nature that makes her a natural match for Charlie.

Gust is easily the most enjoyable character in the film, beginning his tenure in the piece with yelling at his boss in a way many of us wish we could. He is cranky, acerbic and incredibly intelligent. What he lacks in social skills, he more than makes up for in usefulness and he carries a somewhat sad quality to him as well.

And then there is Charlie. Charlie Wilson is initially characterized as an inconsequential Representative whose only care in the world is drinking, having a good time with strippers and admiring the female form. Sure, he takes his meaningless votes seriously, as he takes his constitutional separation of powers and protections of freedoms seriously (all of this is illustrated early on in the film) and when his lack of issue statements allows him to build up a voting record that has helped many people, Charlie becomes uniquely able to call in favors to change the world through the plan he and Gus execute!

Tom Hanks is good as Charlie Wilson. Actually, he suffers from "Carrey's Frewer Riddler Syndrome," as I call it. In Batman Forever, arguably a vehicle that was cashing in on Jim Carrey's tremendous celebrity at the time, Jim Carrey portrays Matthew Frewer playing the Riddler. Anyone familiar with Frewer's works will instantly catch that Jim Carrey is doing a spot on interpretation of Frewer. The movie could have saved some money and gone with the less famous actor and had the same effect. Tom Hanks as Charlie Wilson is playing Christopher Rich playing Charlie Wilson. Indeed, Hanks plays Wilson almost identical to the way Rich played Senator Jefferson on the episode of The Lone Gunmen he played in! So, this somewhat understated, good-natured, possibly a little dim role may be a stretch for Hanks, but he plays it just like Christopher Rich. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

What Hanks does very well is play off Julia Roberts, who portrays Joanne. The best I can say about Roberts here is that she plays Joanne as understated as possible given the role is flashy by nature. I am not, traditionally, a fan of Julia Roberts as she often plays remarkably similar characters that do not stretch her acting abilities. Here, the role is unlike anything I have seen her play and she lives up to the hype. She is articulate, emotive without being stiff and surprisingly authoritative with the jargon. And on the turn of a dime, she becomes soft and subtly manipulative, most notably in a scene in an Afghan refugee camp when her character is walking a high-ranking member of the committee through and inspiring him to speak to the crowd and make a promise to them. In that scene she rules and the truth is that there is not a moment after she begins speaking that I felt I was watching Julia Roberts instead of Joanne.

But it is Phillip Seymour Hoffman who rules Charlie Wilson's War from the acting perspective. Ever since he appeared in the second greatest film of all time, Magnolia, I've been fascinated with his work. He had a wonderfully emotive performance in that film and finding a role that would top it has been a challenge for Hoffman. This is it, though. In this he plays Gust as a zen master one moment, a screaming ball of unrepressed anger the next. Hoffman is charged with making both extremes - and it seems Gust seldom exists outside the extremes - believable. Hoffman makes the viewer believe in the credibility of the middle-aged spymaster who has been passed over for career advancement and opportunities through his slouch, his delivery (no one can yell "Fuck you!" the way Hoffman can!) and the way he is able to focus when he has to to embody a strong sense of professionalism. In Charlie Wilson's War, Hoffman becomes a model for acting students everywhere with his range and versatility.

I am not much for special effects in films, but I have to say that Charlie Wilson's War does the spectacle thing right. Director Mike Nichols integrated historical footage from the '80s into the film and he does not hide the footage as it has obvious film quality differences. My only peeve with this is that it is not until near the end of the film that Nichols makes explicit how much time this whole process has taken, which is bothersome. He makes up for it with one of the most subtle and decent effects shots I've seen in recent films. Charlie stands in a refugee camp that is massive and an experienced moviegoer will instantly realize this is Tom Hanks standing in front of a bluescreen shot. It's a flawless merge, though. The effects department beautifully melds the shot so it looks like Hanks is actually there. Most viewers will likely miss it because it is so well executed!

It is worth noting as well that one of the selling points of Charlie Wilson's War was that Julia Roberts appears in a bikini in it. Honestly, the dialogue and mood at the time this comes up completely overshadows the spectacle of seeing yet another Hollywood-beautiful woman in a bathing suit. And yes, we do see Hanks' backside, and yet it is strangely unmemorable as the context makes it seem completely natural. Sadly, that scene - considering it is preceded by several breasts - is what will keep this film from being shown in high school classes in years to come. Tools.

Now on DVD, Charlie Wilson's War is presented well, but with depressingly few DVD bonus features. Indeed, there are only two featurettes, a behind-the-scenes and a biographic feature on the real Charlie Wilson. Given the number of big players and the importance of this story, one wishes for more, like a full-length commentary track (or three!) throughout the film.

So, who will like Charlie Wilson's War? Anyone who likes drama about the workings of establishment machines. This is not strictly a war movie and it is certainly not a straight comedy, though amid even the most serious scenes there are usually comedic lines (that's very Sorkin!). And it works. This is a wonderful character study of a man living up to his potential and those who enable him to do that. It's an understated drama that is a little plot-heavy, but for the most part, it's the story that shows how one of America's biggest sausages was made.

And now, more than ever, it's important people see that.

For other films that are essentially process stories, please check out my reviews of:
Wall Street
The Verdict
Flash Of Genius

7/10

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

© 2010, 2008, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |