Denial Makes A Good Argument With An Unsatisfying Protagonist.

The Good: Good performances, Engaging story, Interesting supporting characters, Good direction
The Bad: Unlikable protagonist, Odd seeds of supporting characters that go undeveloped
The Basics: Denial does an exceptional job of creating an impressive antagonist and characterizing an interesting legal battle without making its protagonist likable or enjoyable to watch.


With the current political climate of the world being what it is, when my wife and I talk about politics lately, our conversations tend to come back to holocausts. Genocide has happened multiple times in our history and it continues to happen and there has been more than one holocaust, but the continuing genocides tend to get swept aside when people discuss the Holocaust (capital "H," from World War II). It's almost as if people honestly believe humanity learned some grand lesson from the systematic extermination of the Jews, gypsies, and gays in World War II and actually lived up to the vow of "never again." So when, in one of our discussions, I made a flippant remark about "Holocaust deniers" and my wife made a comment akin to "whoever those people are" and I tried to confirm that such people exist, I found myself in an odd position. We had recently re-watched Religulous (reviewed here!) and I noted that there was a segment in that, to which my wife looked horrified and said, "I thought that was a joke, a gag!" I realized how entirely ignorant of the subject of Holocaust deniers I was when I said "Well, I know [now former] President Ahmedinejad of Iran is a Holocaust denier . . . of course, he also doesn't believe there are any gay people in Iran, so . . ." and then quickly told my wife that I could not answer any follow-up questions on the subject of Holocaust deniers. I knew they existed, I kind of wrote them off as ridiculous and I never actually tried to learn about them. But, last year at the outset of Oscar Pandering Season, I recall there being a film about the subject, so I figured that it was time to take it in.

The film is Denial and I had been interested in seeing it when it came out, but I never got around to it. More than the subject, seeing something where Tom Wilkinson was once again poised to astonish me with his dramatic acting was more than enough to get me to want to watch Denial. But, long before Wilkinson appears on screen, it is clear that Timothy Spall is being given the chance to truly show off his chops in the film. Denial is based upon historical events which I am largely ignorant of, so this is a pure review of the film alone.

Deborah Lipstadt is a professor at Emory University in 1994, when she publishes the book Denying The Holocaust. While at a discussion of her book, Holocaust denier David Irving stands up to assert that Lipstadt has been denigrating his work. Irving challenges Lipstadt and offers $1000 to anyone in the audience who can prove Hitler ordered the extermination of the Jews and when security is called, Irving appears to surrender. But the entire event is a set-up for Irving; he had it filmed and he uses it as a bedrock to sue Lipstadt. Watching footage of Irving, Lipstadt decides not to settle and in 1996 when the case is brought to the high court of London, Lipstadt confers with British Barrister Anthony Julius, who handled Princess Diana's divorce! When she learns that in British court, she must prove that Irving is a liar, Lipstadt spends years building her case against Irving.

When the process of discovery becomes drawn out and expensive, Lipstadt has to fundraise and she finds herself in conflict with her legal team and its strategies. When Julius turns the case over to Solicitor Richard Rampton, Lipstadt takes him to Auschwitz for discovery and exploration. There, she finds herself in conflict with the Solicitor as he needs scientific proof and the only major studies that have been done were actually performed by Holocaust deniers. As the trial nears, Lipstadt is astonished that her side does not want her to testify and Julius and Rampton are working to secure a trial by judge, instead of a jury trial. While they are successful in that motion, the trial begins with Irving characterizing himself as David in a "David Vs. Goliath" type struggle and Lipstadt begins to fear that her side might not be able to defeat Irving and his rhetoric.

Denial is a deliberately difficult movie and there is something refreshing about watching a film about the Holocaust that explores the history of the event without creating a story that tugs on the heartstrings. To be clear; Holocaust films - as a genre - have merit and value for giving voice to the victims of the Holocaust . . . but there is a repetitive quality to them. When a friend of my family told me that she was spending months doing a sort of "Holocaust Movie Marathon" to learn more about the Holocaust, my reaction was "what a horribly depressing way to spend months!" Humans need some of that in order to understand the magnitude of the Holocaust and its importance on a human level, but I honestly believe that if you can't get how horrible the Holocaust was out of two or three good Holocaut movies, you'll probably never truly get it. So, Denial is a very different film in exploring the Holocaust and its effects.

One of the most difficult aspects of discussing Denial is that it is based on actual events. As a result, it is tough to talk about the characters in the film as if they were not real people. So, I write the next words with respect and factuality; anything I write about Deborah Lipstadt is solely about the character in Denial, not the historical person. The problem with Denial on a character level is that the protagonist is largely unlikable. Lipstadt is presented in Denial as loud and irrational. She quickly becomes the greatest liability to her own case in that Lipstadt is committed to giving a voice to the survivors of the Holocaust instead of fighting the legal case she is presented. Lipstadt hires legal professionals and is often unwilling to accept their counsel or expertise.

Characterizing Lipstadt as overly emotional and loud sets up an unfortunate dichotomy within Denial. The men are cool, professional and logical, the women are guided by their emotions to the detriment of order and reason. Lipstadt has the right perspective and the truth on her side, but because the film begins with Lipstadt declaring that she does not argue with Holocaust deniers and confront those who disagree with her, it makes her appear entrenched and illogical instead of in the right.

Denial is led by Rachel Weisz and she plays Lipstadt as strong and smart, but the fact that the film has to actually address how Lipstadt acts informs the viewer almost explicitly just how annoying Weisz is in her performance. Weisz is best in Denial when reacting. Director Mick Jackson does an impressive job of capturing Weisz when she is quiet and emotional and that illustrates great performance and direction far better than any line Weisz delivers in Denial.

Timothy Spall and Tom Wilkinson are amazing in Denial. Spall plays Irving as dogmatic and angry and he is consistent in every moment of his performance. Wilkinson is predictably delightful in the role of the Solicitor. Richard Rampton in Denial is solid and rational and when Wilkinson plays him with a deathly stare he truly nails home the core of the character. Spall, Wilkinson, and Weisz are surrounded by incredible raw talent like Andrew Scott (Julius), Mark Gatiss, and incredibly briefly John Sessions.

Denial is an intriguing look at law and scientific proof, more than it is about proving that the Holocaust in World War II occurred. It is fascinating to see the machinations of the legal process and it is generally well-presented . . . even if the protagonist is neither.

For other films that explore the Holocaust, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Defiance
Schindler's List

6.5/10

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

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

Katherine Heigl Exchanges Mundane Romantic Comedies For A Mundane Gay-Friendly Romantic Comedy In Jenny's Wedding.

The Good: Good acting, Decent writing
The Bad: Mundane plot, Unremarkable characters
The Basics: Katherine Heigl makes a coming out movie for mainstream audiences with Jenny's Wedding, which is a romance about twenty years behind its relevance.


Whenever a subculture's struggle and culture becomes pervasive-enough, mainstream media catches up with where the marginalized group has been . . . usually for years. Twenty years ago, when The Incredibly True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love (reviewed here!) was released, it was a pretty audacious art film that managed to open a wide section of American culture up to the everyday struggles of young lesbian women. The LGBT struggle for acceptance and civil rights recognition has come a long way in the past twenty years and as Jenny's Wedding hits theaters, it is almost passe. Hell, Friends - one of the most popular, most-watched television shows of the last twenty years, had a lesbian wedding episode nineteen years ago.

Does that mean the struggle does not still exist for lesbians and gays coming out to their families? No, but the struggle is hardly that momentous in much of the United States and in most of the developed world. Katherine Heigl and Alexis Bledel lead the cast of Jenny's Wedding in a mundane love story and coming out story that is about as interesting as watching any two middle class, heterosexual people turn a casual college romance into wedded bliss. These stories need a hook and Jenny's Wedding does not have one. Katherine Heigl and Alexis Bledel are incredibly safe casting choices for a lesbian couple and the sheer lack of complication in their characters' relationship makes Jenny's Wedding drag. Are we really at the point in our society's development where we truly need a film that implicitly states "they [LGBT folks] are just like us [the heterosexual majority]?" IFC Films seems to think so.

In advance of her parents' anniversary party, Jenny finds her family - especially her nosy sister - pressuring her to settle down and get into a relationship. After discussing it with her roommate and longtime girlfriend, Kitty, Jenny attempts to come out to her family at her parent's anniversary party. Her mother and father are shocked and ask Jenny to not tell the rest of the family and she begrudgingly agrees. Jenny's father, Eddie's, attitudes quickly change as he becomes troubled by how his firefighter co-workers refer to gays and lesbians. His wife, Rose, is much more shocked by Jenny's coming out and that complicates her interactions with her friends. In fact, that Rose asked Jenny to continue lying causes friction between Rose and Eddie.

As people find out, Jenny stands up for herself and Kitty and they begin planning the wedding in earnest. Despite an awkward public coming out at her old neighbor's funeral, Jenny sticks by her decision and prioritizes her love for Kitty over the discomfort of her parents. And her parents work to come around to accepting her.

Katherine Heigl is a good, safe, choice for Jenny and Jenny's Wedding does exactly what it sets out to do. It's a coming out and gay wedding movie. And for those who have never seen one of the hundreds (thousands, maybe?) of coming out movies in the past, this is a wonderful, safe entry for the masses into the genre. Personally, I still prefer The Incredibly True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love as it is far more complex as it includes issues of economics, interethnic relationships, and first-time/experienced individuals exploring a relationship.

The closest to genuine conflict that Jenny's Wedding has comes when Jenny's sister, Anne, sees Jenny and Kitty at Nordstrom's and freaks out. Anne's rant to Rose is interesting in that Anne is suddenly complex; she is less angry about Jenny being gay than how Rose having Jenny continue lying to her continues a long history of bad cycles in their relationship. As Jenny comes out more publicly and Rose works to accept who her daughter is (and has been), Jenny's Wedding becomes very mundane. And, for fans of the genre, there is the very predictable "person who already knew" character (this time in the form of Jenny's brother).

Jenny and Kitty are well-off enough that the wedding isn't going to financially ruin them or truly strain their relationship. Jenny and Kitty are in a longterm, monogamous relationship so neither has to break the heart of their beard to move ahead with their wedding. And in yet another, desperate attempt to create a film that makes everyone as comfortable as possible, Jenny and Kitty are looking to start a family of their own, which involves them having children (because, screw you, child-free people!). Seriously, Jenny is a good, Christian, girl who wants to have a normal family unit with her wife, so mainstream America, see how not-fringy these people are?! Jenny and Kitty are more stable and happy than Anne and Frankie, so it's not like heterosexuals are characterized as all happy and okay.

Outside a stifling lack of onscreen chemistry between Katherine Heigl and Alexis Bledel, what Jenny's Wedding has in spades is great acting. Tom Wilkinson is wonderful as Eddie and the scenes where he and Katherine Heigl play opposite one another are the performance high points of the movie. In fact, it has been easy for years to say that Katherine Heigl is overrated or typecast in works in which she appears: Jenny's Wedding proves she has talent. Heigl holds her own for screen presence with Wilkinson and that is no small task. When Heigl manages not to flinch under Wilkinson's quiet, but furiously-delivered lines at the funeral, it is hard not to sit up and notice her!

Jenny's Wedding has decent supporting performances by Sam McMurray, Grace Gummer, and Linda Emond. McMurray delivers the funniest line of the film as his character tries to reconcile Kitty's name being the same for both Jenny's fiance and the married man with whom she supposedly had an affair. Gummer shows more range than she was allowed during her tenure on The Newsroom (season three is reviewed here!) and Linda Emond does everything that That Type Of Character is supposed to do as Rose. Rose is the reticent mother whose love of her daughter will give her the opportunity to come around, despite all her inherent hurt and prejudices and Emond plays the part well-enough to be convincing.

But the performances are not enough to save Jenny's Wedding. The female sidekick (in this case Anne) comes up with the standard romantic comedy cliche epiphany that seems pretty ridiculous, the soundtrack is troublingly overbearing, there's the conflict montage and everything essential fits into the allotted ninety minutes (or 94, in this case). Jenny's Wedding isn't bad, but it's a movie virtually everyone has already seen.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Dragon Blade
Fantastic 4
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation
Ant-Man
Lila & Eve
Minions
No Way Jose
Terminator Genisys
Inside Out
Jurassic World

5/10

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9/10

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

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

Oscar Pandering Season Reaches Its Peak With Selma!

The Good: Moments of performance, Generally engaging story, Some good character choices
The Bad: Some unfortunate casting/performance choices, Thematically heavy-handed
The Basics: Selma makes for a surprisingly bland historical drama that tries to capitalize on Awards’ Season, rather than telling a timeless and important story of the Civil Rights Movement!


Almost two years ago, I read and was quite inspired by, The Autobiography Of Martin Luther King Jr. (reviewed here!) and it awoke in me the sensation of just how far the Civil Rights Movement has to go before all people are free (though my perceptions are now very much on a different direction for the movement). So, when Selma was announced, I was actually pretty excited about it. . . . then it got a release date. Selma’s limited release in New York City and Los Angeles in the last few weeks of 2014 before its wide release in 2015 makes the film perhaps the most obvious bit of Oscarbait this season. As major studios bombard viewers with heavily-dramatic films designed to showcase the talents of directors and actors who could not possibly open the same films during Summer Blockbuster Season and be remembered until Academy (and Golden Globe) voters had to vote for their favorites of the year, Selma is doing exactly what it is “supposed” to do.

Selma is a tool being used by Paramount Pictures and the Hollywood studio system to retain influence and help performers, directors, and the like woo investors. If those releasing Selma actually wanted to make a statement and honor the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., they would have released it well in advance of the 2012 Midterm elections in order to use its messages of social change as a clarion call to inspire voters. But, Selma and its December/January staggered release is a business move. Clearly Oprah Winfrey, whose HARPO Productions helped finance Selma, learned an important lesson from the release of The Butler, which had an August release back in 2013, garnered a great deal of attention and was virtually forgotten by the time Award Season came. Following the thematic heavy-handedness of 12 Years A Slave (reviewed here!), Selma hits screens with additional burdens. The film can educate the young (though “segregation is bad” seems to have an obvious resonance, much like 12 Years A Slave’s “slavery was brutal”), remind those who lived through it (the job is not yet over) and entertain. The burden on Selma is to “pull an Argo.” Argo (reviewed here!) pulled off something of a cinematic miracle; viewers with even a modicum of education knew exactly how the film would end, but the power of the film was that midway through the movie, viewers forget they know what is coming next because of the tension and captivating performances. In a similar way, Selma is burdened with viewers knowing the significance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s march from Selma, Alabama, to Montgomery, Alabama. Viewers going into Selma have to know that the film will

Selma is exactly as heavy-handed as one might expect. From the moment Annie Cooper is told she has to name all 67 county judges in Alabama in order to have her voter registration approved, viewers know they are in for an unrelenting message movie. Director Ava DuVernay and writer Paul Webb literally hit us in the face with the theme and message moments later when Martin Luther King Jr. is “introduced” to a man in Selma by getting punched in the face. Unfortunately for viewers, Selma does not pull an Argo; there is little entertaining or even engaging to watching the struggle for equality in the organization and execution of the Selma Civil Rights March, at least as it is presented in Selma.

Opening with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Oslo, where he is being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, tensions in the South begin running high when a church is bombed, killing four girls. Returning to the United States, King has the opportunity to meet with President Johnson. Johnson tries to sell King on his “War On Poverty” while Dr. King pushes for voting equality. Finding that the tensions in Selma make it an ideal place to fight the next, significant, battle of the Civil Rights Movement, Dr. King makes plans to move his power base there to fight for equal voting rights for Negros. While the FBI works to undermine the King family and Coretta Scott King gets graphic and disturbing harassing phone calls, Dr. King takes up in Selma.

Soon, the SCLC (Southern Christian Leadership Conference) converges on Selma where they have to negotiate with local movements. Slowly, King and the SCLC organize activists to push for voting reform. Inspired by Dr. King’s speeches and using the infrastructure built years earlier, the black community organizes to fight for their essential human rights.

Director Ava DuVernay does a decent job of tying the movement in Selma to the happenings in Washington, D.C. by periodically including F.B.I. surveillance notes on Dr. King up on screen. The technique works to bind the elements of the story to show well how the push and pull between the Civil Rights Movement and the institutions within the U.S. government reacted to one another.

Selma has a predictably wonderful cast, led by David Oyelowo as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. One has to figure that playing Dr. King is the role of a lifetime for virtually any black actor (because, let’s face it, the casting requirements pretty much demand “black male” above all else – recast that role and your film never gets off the ground!) and Oyelowo certainly has the look for it. Almost immediately in Selma, Oyelowo presents a powerfully human interpretation of Dr. King. Oyelowo’s King is moody, sullen and more-often-than-not exhausted. While this works exceptionally well to create a more well-rounded and realistic character (my review is solely of the film, not actual historical events or the real-life people portrayed in the film!), David Oyelowo’s performance becomes a harder sell than it ought to be. The film shows Dr. King excited most in his stereotypical social moments – the first meeting at Miss Johnson’s house has an unfortunate Black Barbershop Stereotype feel to it – and with Oyelowo’s moodiness, he fails to capture the raw charisma of Dr. King. In other words, there is a strange discontinuity in Oyelowo’s performance; he does not seem old enough at the film’s outset to be portraying the leaders exhausted by years of fighting the fight and F.B.I. surveillance and he does not have the youthful energy to credibly inspire the masses. The result is good casting for physicality and articulation, but falls short on actual performance ability.

The supporting cast of Selma is generally well-cast and fairly well-used. The notable exception to that is Tom Wilkinson. I am a fan of so many of Wilkinson’s works and having him play President Johnson was an unfortunate choice. While Wilkinson might be able to pull of virtually any role, from the moment he first appeared on screen in Selma, I realized that he could be perfectly cast as Nixon. It’s a sad thing to be watching Selma and whenever Wilkinson’s Johnson pops up on screen one has to remind themselves that they are not watching Richard Nixon in action!

At the other end of the spectrum, Wendell Pierce makes great use of his brief time on screen as Williams to present a character who screams with more depth than the moment. Pierce brings a sense of gravitas to the part that implies the history between Williams and King and makes the character of Reverend Williams feel like he has a life outside simply this film. Martin Sheen, Dylan Baker and Carmen Ejogo are all good in Selma.

But, the key role in Selma - outside casting Dr. King – went to Eli Roth. Roth plays Alabama Governor George Wallace and he is an amazing foil to Oyelowo’s King. Roth plays the role with seething anger that contrasts Oyelowo’s calm and he steals the scenes he is in. Roth plays villains well and Wallace is one of his best-presented ones.

But the cast is not enough to make Selma into a film that is likely to do anything other than garner award nominations. The process story elements are not entertaining, the government harassment elements are heavy-handed and obvious and the interplay of the characters is not engaging enough to make the film worthy of attention outside Awards Season.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
The Seventh Son
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
Vice
American Sniper

6/10

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

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

Disney Tries (Again) To Maintain Their Pirates Audience With The Lone Ranger!

The Good: Visually enjoyable, William Fichtner
The Bad: Unimaginative performances, Dull plot, Feels long
The Basics: With The Lone Ranger, Disney and Gore Verbinski prove that successful Disney live action adventure movies need more than Johnny Depp and special effects to succeed.


Disney has a strong history of finding what works and milking it until it is bone dry (and the remnants bear little resemblance to the once-noteworthy original work that spawned the franchise). When they hit it big with Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl (reviewed here!), they created a franchise that it is virtually certain they are not done tapping. But, shrewd as they were, the executives at Disney could not duplicate the successful elements of the Pirates Of The Caribbean franchise with either Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time (reviewed here!) or John Carter (reviewed here!). So, in going back to the well, it is somewhat unsurprising that they would try for a new franchise that reteams Gore Verbinski (the Pirates director) and Johnny Depp (the franchise’s star). The result is The Lone Ranger.

Even more than the thin plot unified that drags the viewer from one exceedingly bloody encounter to another (very hard PG-13 here!), The Lone Ranger seems like a particularly desperate attempt to make something that viewers might want to keep returning to. They fail. There is nothing particularly original about The Lone Ranger, the peril Tonto is put in is undermined entirely by the narrative technique (which has an aged Tonto telling his story to a boy from a point many years in the future) and it lacks a zest or spark to set it apart from other, already beloved films that have Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter acting goofy. Given the comparatively short resume of Armie Hammer, who plays the title role, it is unsurprising that Tonto dominates the film in order to capitalize on the celebrity of Johnny Depp.

Unfortunately, Depp’s performance has more in common with his character from Dead Man (reviewed here!) than the quotable and wacky Jack Sparrow.

Recounted by Tonto, John Reid – a Harvard lawyer who has come out to the frontier – is with his brother and a group of Rangers when they are ambushed by Butch Cavendish. Cavendish is brutal and rumored to be a cannibal and his attack on Reid and his party confirms his reputation. It is Tonto who rescues John Reid and convinces the young man to don a mask to protect himself and those close to him if he insists on pursuing Cavendish (which Reid does). With his brother dead, nephew and sister-in-law captured, Reid has strong motivation to track down Cavendish. Together, Tonto and the Lone Ranger begin a hunt for Cavendish and his gang.

On the way, they get clues and meet with minor obstacles from Latham Cole and Red Harrington as the negotiate the wild frontier. In avoiding both U.S. military forces and native warriors, Tonto and the Lone Ranger, with their trusty steed Silver, are put on the path to avenge the wronged and save Reid’s remaining family.

The Lone Ranger suffers – in addition from being excessively, often needlessly, bloody – in that it rambles along feeling every minute of the two and a half hours that it is. It lacks real social commentary, despite having the greedy railroad tycoon (Cole, played plausibly enough by master Tom Wilkinson)and a budding conflict between the U.S. and natives. Instead, it focuses on making cheap shots at the inexperienced Reid and occasionally reminding the viewer just how ruthless Cavendish is (he is not one who would team up with the allies in a sequel a la Barbosa in Pirates).

Therein lies one of the few saving graces in The Lone Ranger: William Fichtner as Butch Cavendish. Fichtner is a wonderful character actor and in The Lone Ranger, he presents scene-stealing villainy as the antagonist. Fichtner has a way of setting his eyes that makes them cold and embody evil in a way few actors can. As Cavendish, Fichtner illustrates just how creepy and mean his performances can be and there is not a moment that he appears on screen that the viewer does not fully believe they are watching a stone-cold killer at work.

By contrast, Armie Hammer gives a very white bread performance as John Reid. While he seems fine for the fight sequences, he is bland otherwise as the Lone Ranger. Similarly, Verbinski all but labels Johnny Depp as the point of The Lone Ranger remake by giving him frequent moments that have the actor emoting his disdain, surprise or disappointment with his eyes (mostly for comic effect). The Lone Ranger is a somewhat less talkative Jack Sparrow stuck in the desert and Depp’s performance is not only unsurprising, it is largely uninteresting.

Sadly, that is the state of the entire film The Lone Ranger.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
Oz The Great And Powerful
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
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
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron

3.5/10

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

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

Christopher Nolan Makes Superhero Films Respectable With The Dark Knight Trilogy!

The Good: Interesting characters, Great thematic development, Amazing acting, Generally good plot progression.
The Bad: Pacing, Predictability of the final act
The Basics: With Christopher Nolan’s interpretation of the Batman mythos with The Dark Knight Trilogy, viewers are treated to a sufficiently adult superhero story that nevertheless drags at times.


As one who does not go back and re-rate products and media, it is a rare thing for me to have an opportunity to make commentary on something that I might have rated unfairly the first time around. When considering individual films versus the entire series or boxed set of a movie, there is the opportunity to consider how the pieces fit together. Sometimes, the sum of the parts is greater, like with The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy (reviewed here!), but more often than not, the full video collection forces one to realize that the pieces might not fit together as well as fans hope. With The Dark Knight Trilogy, watching Christopher Nolan’s Batman films back to back to back, one realizes how much the final act truly suffers in comparison.

I am one of the rare critics who was not entirely bowled over by Batman Begins; I found it slower and more ponderous than clever and engaging. Rewatching it, the pacing does not bother me nearly as much, and while I respect the thematic development in the movie, his exploration of fear is not as well-developed as the themes in the other movies. On the other end of the Trilogy, The Dark Knight Rises seems disturbingly predictable, formulaic, and unsophisticated coming off the complexity and perfection of The Dark Knight. Viewed in order, in the eight hours of The Dark Knight Trilogy is, hands-down the best superhero film series yet made and it owes much of that to the writing and the able direction of Christopher Nolan, but it is not at all perfect.

Comprised of: Batman Begins (reviewed here!), The Dark Knight (reviewed here!), and The Dark Knight Rises (reviewed here!), The Dark Knight Trilogy assembles the three films and adds the value of two bonus discs.

In Batman Begins, Bruce Wayne returns from years of wandering the world to explore what gives criminals their power to Gotham City, a city his murdered parents were influential in cleaning up. There, he rejoins his father’s company and uses the research and development department to equip himself for a nighttime war on crime in Gotham City. As Batman, he begins to strike fear into the mob, while during the day posing as an irresponsible playboy. Bruce Wayne’s efforts clash with the machinations of Dr. Jonathan Crane, the psychologist at Arkham Asylum, where he experiments on the criminally insane and the League Of Shadows, which seeks to destroy Gotham City as a statement against the decadence of the world.

After years of fighting crime, The Dark Knight sees the potential to retire when Gotham City’s new district attorney, Harvey Dent, begins his own war on crime in the city by prosecuting the mobsters. Wayne’s romantic life is complicated by the fact that his childhood love is romantically involved with Harvey Dent and his vigilante actions are met with resolve of the psychopathic Joker. Meant to bring chaos to the attempts at order of Batman and Jim Gordon, the Joker strikes at the heart of the city by attacking Rachel Dawes and working to corrupt Harvey Dent.

Eight years later, with Batman having been vilified, a mysterious woman breaks into Wayne Manor to steal a copy of Bruce Wayne’s fingerprints. As Wayne Enterprises stock suffers, with the research and development department sitting on an incredible power source that could be perverted into a weapon, a thug named Bane makes an assault on the Gotham City stock exchange. Bane shatters Bruce Wayne and deports him while taking over Gotham City. Cut off from the rest of the world when Bane steals the reactor and destroys the bridges out of the city, Bane crushes the spirit of the city by exposing the deception of Jim Gordon and holds Gotham City hostage. Bruce Wayne must physically recover, return to Gotham City and resume his role as Batman to save the people who turned against him.

The Dark Knight Trilogy smartly develops themes in each film and those themes interact well with one another. From fear to the struggle between order and chaos to an exploration on the nature of consequences, The Dark Knight Trilogy strives to be more than just a repetitive saga of superhero films. By developing themes over the course of the three films, Christopher Nolan and his co-writers manage to shake up the familiar and often formulaic superhero stories.

Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Trilogy is an epic of ever-increasing sacrifice on the part of Bruce Wayne. Starting as the man who has everything, Bruce Wayne’s character arc is far less defined by his romantic entanglements, as it is by the steep curve of his level of sacrifice. Bruce Wayne gives up more and more in order to combat evil in Gotham City. While his mansion is rebuilt, Bruce Wayne’s adherence to rules and his singleminded ambition are challenged before he encounters an enemy who he might have to give up his life to defeat.

The Dark Knight Trilogy is supported by wonderful supporting characters. Bruce Wayne is not in his fight alone. Supported personally by the family butler, Alfred, supplied professionally by his father’s trusted aid Lucius Fox, and directed on the streets by the one uncorrupted cop, Jim Gordon (and later Blake), Bruce Wayne becomes a viable character who seems to have a reasonable investment in the city he is trying to save. Instead of simply being a superhero motivated by some sense of idealism, The Dark Knight Trilogy instead develops a character whose family ties and then his own friendships motivate him to fight organized crime.

Just as the characters in The Dark Knight Trilogy are compelling and developed enough to have complex motivations that make for a surprisingly sophisticated series of movies, the performers are all top-notch and playing at the top of their game. Consistently great are Christian Bale (Bruce Wayne), Michael Caine (Alfred), Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox), and Gary Oldman (Jim Gordon), with wonderful supporting performances by Cillian Murphy (Dr. Crane), Liam Neeson, Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent), Heath Ledger (The Joker), Nestor Carbonell (the Mayor), Anne Hathaway (Selina Kyle), and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Blake).

On DVD and Blu-Ray, The Dark Knight Trilogy includes the three films, with bonus discs for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises, with enough behind-the-scenes content to please the fans.

Cinephiles enjoy The Dark Knight Trilogy and while the fans of superhero films reasonably go gaga over the set, discriminating film critics have to admit that the Trilogy is hardly perfect. It’s close, but the pacing and inevitable predictability of The Dark Knight Trilogy is off enough to make it just shy of absolute perfection.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman
Supergirl
Wonder Woman - Season 1

8.5/10

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

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

A Saga Of Scarlett Johansson Continues With Oscar Wilde's A Good Woman

The Good: Great lines, Some decent performances, Great direction
The Bad: Characters and plot rather standard, Some flat performances
The Basics: With amusing wit and little character development, Mike Barker's A Good Woman does its best with Oscar Wilde's play for an entertaining evening.


In my review of In Good Company (here!), I came to realize that despite understanding the appeal of Scarlett Johansson, I've yet to see her in anything where her performance has wowed me. So, I sat down with the film A Good Woman to continue my quest to be impressed by Johansson. My quest continues . . .

Meg Windermere is twenty and married to Robert, and together on holiday in 1930s Italy they prepare for Meg's twenty-first birthday. Robert soon runs into the notorious Mrs. Erlynne, a woman who has a habit of living off other women's husbands. Rumors soon begin to fly that Robert is involved with Mrs. Erlynne, even as a kinder older gentleman named Tuppy pursues Mrs. Erlynne out of love.

A Good Woman is adapted from Oscar Wilde's play by Howard Himelstein and directed by Mike Barker. Barker is excellent in his direction on the film, emphasizing aspects of character and plot that would be difficult - if not impossible - to convey through a play. So, for example, during a critical scene involving a checkbook, Barker keeps the camera focused on the ledger and the details of the ledger, which is using the medium very well. Barker plays with such details for maximum impact and it works.

The thing is, the movie is still Oscar Wilde fare and that means two things. The first is that Wilde was obsessed with people and gossip and socialites and it's a very different world from the one most of us live in. Those not part of "society" tend to find the pretenses and machinations pretentious at best, silly at worst. Throughout the film there are gossips who are telling the audience what society is saying, in the form of the Countess Lucchino and Tuppy's friends (who are reminiscent of Statler and Waldorf of The Muppet Show). In A Good Woman, these characters are more annoying than helpful because director Mike Barker makes clear by showing all that they would tell. In addition to appearing superfluous, they slow down the movie and weaken any emotional resonance of the main characters. They are an annoying distraction.

The second problem most viewers will run into is the language of Oscar Wilde. Wilde was a genius of observation and wit. It's almost impossible to deny that few could quip better than Wilde. The problem is, it doesn't make for coherent dialogue. While this is a period film and one might expect some archaic dialogue, viewers ought to know that - even in his time - no one talks like they do in a Wilde play. So, for those who watch the film and think that every line is going over their head, that's not necessarily you, well it might be YOU, but in general, it's Wilde. Wilde is brilliant with observations, weak on stringing them together into coherent lines of dialogue.

So, for example, great lines in A Good Woman include such observations as "I like America. Name me another society that's gone from barbarism to decadence with bothering to create a civilization in between" (Darlington). This is responded to by Tuppy, who returns, "A tribute to American efficiency." Conversation done. Wilde makes great observations and delightful rejoinders, but the average conversation in A Good Woman is three to five lines long.

That's a problem from the script up and as a result, a lot of the characters seem awkward. In life, we're used to conversations that happen with real exchanges. They take time, they develop. In A Good Woman, everyone is a wit and that's mostly all they exchange. When Mrs. Erlynne begins to truly open up with Robert, it is almost entirely for plot exposition and filling in backstory. It also comes far too late in the movie for most of us to care.

Scarlett Johansson is adequate as Meg. I'm looking for more than adequate from Johansson. She gets around all of the awkward dialogue written for her, but her performance still seems stiff. I recognize that she is playing a young woman and someone who is overly concerned with what society thinks, but there's no zest, no spark in Johansson's performance that makes her feel real or human. Or like her character has real potential to grow.

Mark Umbers, who plays Robert is even flatter. His performance is downright bland.

Conversely, the two senior members of the main cast make the film worth the recommend. Tom Wilkinson, who supplied perhaps the only truly decent performance in the terrible The Last Kiss (reviewed here!), is wonderful as Tuppy. Wilkinson has the spark in the eye, the wistful quality to the voice and stance that sell us on the idea of the aging divorcee who wants to give marriage another try. Wilkinson steals every scene he's in.

Helen Hunt leads the cast as Mrs. Erlynne, which relieves the viewer of the question of "Whatever happened to Helen Hunt?" Hunt is great as Erlynne, subtly playing a role that could be flamboyant and garish. Instead, she is understated, clever and a real pleasure to watch. Hunt has charm that is essential to convincing the audience of the reality of her character. In A Good Woman, she displays that charm with expert grace.

Ultimately, A Good Woman is a fun movie, though typically Wilde. The lines are good, even if they are somewhat disjointed and prevent genuine character development. The costumes are decent and while I would not buy this for my permanent collection, it's certainly worth a viewing. Just don't look to it to sell Scarlett Johansson.

For other works featuring Helen Hunt, check out my reviews of:
What Women Want
Pay It Forward
As Good As It Gets

7/10

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.

| | |

It's Never A Good Sign When A Cinephile Has Not Heard of Your Movie. . . The Last Kiss

The Good: Moments of decent acting
The Bad: Not funny, Not charming, Characters almost universally stink, First hour is terrible
The Basics: If you want to save time an not read this review, all you need to know about The Last Kiss is it's bad. Real bad. Of unacceptably poor quality. Blech!


Sometimes when I am reviewing a movie, I get caught up in the minutiae. I find myself thinking about how BAD a movie truly was and today while contemplating The Last Kiss, I decided my life is worth more than sitting and truly worrying about whether this was a 1 or 2 point movie. The first hour of The Last Kiss is absolutely terrible. The movie picks up near the end and I was debating for some time how much that ought to count for before I decided my life is worth more than that. Go figure.

Michael, a young man in his late twenties, is living his life with a girlfriend of three years, a great job and a generally nice place in the world when he decides he is unsatisfied about this state of affairs. Learning his girlfriend, Jenna, is pregnant, he appears ready to stand up but when he meets Kim, he allows his attention and devotion to wander. While Michael is having his crisis of lack of personality, Jenna's parents split, and Michael's circle of male friends begin to fall apart with their relationships.

There comes a point when one is doing something, watching or listening to something and they realize they are no longer in any way connected to the next generation. I officially hit that mark while watching the witless antics of Michael in The Last Kiss. There's a disconnect in me that fails to understand movies featuring young people with Hollywood-good looks and great relationships and stations in life who are simply miserable. The disconnect is tripped because for people of that younger age, which I apparently no longer am, the solution is always to change romantic partners. Sure, it's not cinematic for a guy who feels a lack in his life to take up a hobby or go back to school, but something other than simply screwing the first new woman who shows him affection would be nice. And, it seems, it's always a younger woman.

The thing is, none of the characters, save Jenna's father Stephen, say anything remotely interesting during the course of the entire movie. Michael feels anxiety. Okay. He's feeling anxious because there are no surprises left in his life. Wow. Boo hoo. I don't buy it. I don't buy that seeing one's future looking like one imagined it is such a bad thing. And if it is, it's his own fault; Michael laments that life looks exactly as he thought it would growing up. He never takes responsibility for the concept that HE DIRECTED HIS LIFE IN THE DIRECTION IT WENT!

The supplementary characters are equally witless and problematic. Izzy is an obsessed loser who cannot stay away from the woman he loved, who has dumped him. Kenny is sexually promiscuous and manages to find a woman who satisfies him completely until she wants him to meet her parents (I was seriously rooting for Kenny to have the awakening that getting everything he wanted was enough to want to stick with someone, but alas . . .). Sadly, it is Chris, who is waking up to the difficult realization that having a child has ruined his relationship with his wife, who I found myself rooting for. Even Anna, Jenna's mother, does not come across as sympathetic or realistic or even interesting as Chris.

As for Michael, he's bafflingly stupid for an architect. For a well-educated, fairly responsible guy he pretty much shoots rationality in the foot the moment he hits the first emotional obstacle. There is nothing especially distinctive or interesting about Kim, the college student who begins hitting on him. Sure, she looks good in a miniskirt, but she's so much more an object than a personality in this piece.

I could evaluate all of the performances, but for a movie of this quality, I am opting to not waste my time, nor yours. Zach Braff, who plays Michael, is convincing as a directionless, somewhat moronic adult. He plays witless and distressed well, even if his character's motivations are never fully explored. Casey Affleck gives an astonishingly deep performance as his character, Chris, wrestles with the emotional decision to abandon his wife. Affleck's story becomes more interesting than any of the others by the sheer magnitude of his performance.

The best acting, though, comes from the over 50 crowd in The Last Kiss. Harold Ramis's cameo steals that scene and Blythe Danner is easily the most interesting woman on screen in the course of the movie (and that includes the naked women having sex in a hammock). But the acting gravitas - when it is present in this lemon - comes exclusively from Tom Wilkinson, who plays Stephen. He is given the heaviest lines, especially near the end and he is up for the heavy lifting.

In the end, though, even that is not enough for me to willingly recommend The Last Kiss or rate it above 1.5. The movie fails to ask too many integral questions. Chris's anxiety over leaving his wife is a story in itself that has unrealized potential because we never see the pair happy. None of the characters seem to believe they can truly change their fate, save the witless Izzy and his only solution is to run away to South America.

Just once, I'd like to see an intelligent movie involving the next generation that gives me hope that humanity will not only survive, but grow. This movie is not it.

For other works Harold Ramis was involved in, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Year One
The Ice Harvest
Orange County
Bedazzled
As Good As It Gets

1.5/10

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

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

| | |

Who Is This Deceiving? Duplicity Is Much More Average Than Extraordinary.

The Good: Decent enough acting, Moments of plot
The Bad: Pacing, Light on character
The Basics: Slower than expected, Duplicity lacks real substance or smarts and leaves those who love spy or espionage films disappointed, despite the casting.


Sometimes, with all of the previews I see given all of the movies in theaters I take in, I am astonished to find a movie that has little to it outside the previews. In fact, while I often complain about how previews in the last few years show the entire movie, it is rare that I run into a film where that is almost literally true. And it might seem odd to preface my review of the two hour five minute movie Duplicity with that remark, but the three minute preview trailer shows almost the entire film, at least the portions with dialogue, outside the final five minutes. Seriously. More troubling than the conspiracy elements - something which I was baffled to discover people in the theater with me today did not understand given they were spelled out pretty explicitly in the final five minutes of the movie - was the fact that almost every line of dialogue and certainly every key bit of information about Duplicity is contained within the preview trailer for the film.

No, there is almost no additional substance outside what one might have seen in a preview to Duplicity. The film is a series of jumps in time returning viewers to a point five years prior, then successively closer intervals to "now," but outside that narrative technique and the movie's final resolution, there are no real surprises, no substantial differences and certainly no depth between the preview trailer and the actual film. For those who love espionage movies, then, this is a tremendous disappointment.

Ray Koval is working corporate security for Equikrom, a personal care/wellness and beauty company which is bitter rivals with Burkett Randle, when he is assigned to meet the Equikrom mole within Burkett Randle. Much to his chagrin, he discovers that his contact is none other than Claire Stenwick, a former CIA agent who burned Koval years prior as part of an espionage mission while Koval was working for MI-6. Now acting as her handler, Ray brings the corporate security and espionage department of Equikrom a true grail, the rough draft of a speech by the head of Burkett Randle, Tully, wherein the CEO of BR alludes to a massive new product the company will be rolling out which will finally sink Equikrom once and for all. Ray and his team begin hunting for the product to beat Burkett Randle to a patent to prevent the company's destruction.

But Ray and Claire's initial confrontation is an elaborate setup on the part of the former intelligence operatives, begun two years prior in Rome. As the current hunt for the new product unfolds with Claire inside Burkett Randle running a confidence game there by exposing Ray at Equikrom at every possible opportunity, Ray and Claire consider the meetings in the past two years that led them to this particular job. As the pair nears the end of their high tech heist, they must choose to trust one another or make the score for only themselves.

Duplicity is told with a main timeline in the "present" with Ray and Claire - after the opening scene - clearly working with one another to acquire the unknown product first, not to rescue Equikrom, but to sell on their own for all the money they want to be able to retire. Now in New York City as the trail of evidence that seems to lead to the mystery product puts Ray and Claire in a game of wits against their respective coworkers in corporate counterintelligence, the story is interspersed with London eighteen months ago, Miami fourteen months ago, and Cleveland three months ago with the backstory of how Ray and Claire came to trust one another and the tests to their faith in one another. It is from mostly the flashbacks that the clips shown on television and before other movies come, but they capture the flirtatious and problematic nature of the relationship between Ray and Claire.

Perhaps Duplicity would have worked better have Clive Owen not appeared so recently in The International, which had him in a similar role trying to track down another corporate conspiracy. One suspects that would not have made a significant amount of difference, though, as Duplicity does not focus all that much on character to begin with. Instead, there is a lot of dialogue that is essentially plot exposition and given the level of explanation that all of the characters give as to what is going on, it baffled me that anyone who could see would leave the theater confused as to what ultimately happens. Indeed, all one has to do at the end is recognize the characters who are standing in a room together and realize where they have seen them in the film before that last five minutes and it becomes pretty obvious exactly what has happened throughout the film.

That said, Duplicity - via writer and director Tony Gilroy - makes a passing effort to present a character struggle in the film. This takes the form of Ray and Claire alternately putting everything on the line for one another or not trusting the other and appearing to work in their own self interest as opposed to part of a whole. The problem here is that the story can go only one of two ways: either Ray and Claire are in it together and are deceiving others or they are in it for themselves. Either of those choices is resolved either with the pair pulling it off together or there being a betrayal that is revealed at the end to thwart one or both of them. Duplicity only works if there seems to be a credible threat that either of the pair is ready to bail on the other and cheat at their overall scheme for their own self interest.

Here Gilroy undermines his own attempt. Because the viewer sees Ray and Claire planning their scheme for years and testing one another well before the actual plan is initiated, the viewer never truly believes that they are not together with their plan, working together even when it appears they are turning on one another. In other words, because the viewer sees the character work and trust built before the actions have consequences - through the flashbacks whenever the main plotline gets slower - we fail to believe that any of their actions are not part of some intricate and elaborate plan on their parts.

Even more disturbing is the concept that for all of the attempts at the pretense of a character struggle dealing with how spies might actually have relationships and learn to trust one another after lying for a living, is the fact that Gilroy never gives the viewer adequate reason for the spies heading off in the direction they are. Ray and Claire meet up in Rome have three days worth of lovemaking and Claire asks Ray how much money he thinks they would need in order to stay in Rome and make love the rest of their lives. From that point on, they each set out to develop a scheme that will net them a forty million dollar nest egg to retire from the spy business on.

But the fundamental question that is not answered is: Why do these two spies only have patience to develop a scheme as opposed to work for a couple of years to earn the same amount of money? Corporate spies like Ray and Claire must make a ton of money. Ray, for example, illustrates that the frozen pizza business is a multi-billion dollar business in the United States. So, one has to imagine - especially in these times when executive bonuses are being so closely scrutinized and widely reported - that if your head of corporate counterintelligence manages to thwart a competitor's attempt to steal a product worth hundreds of millions of dollars that counterintelligence agent would receive a pretty hefty bonus for their work. Neither Ray nor Claire ever exhibits a reason for their sense of need for a ticking clock. Why are they willing to work two years to abandon their lives as trusted assets in the intelligence community instead of working for ten years to get the money legitimately? This, the character element, is the only thing that makes no real sense in Duplicity.

As a result, the heads of each company, Tully and Dick Garsick, have more motivation than Claire or Ray ever have. Tully and Garsick want to destroy each other so their business - and only their business - will survive. As a result, they are willing to be ruthless with one another. But Claire is a former CIA agent and Ray is former MI-6 and the only reason either leaves the principled world of legitimate international spying is to go off and become corporate spies, a job each intends to betray their employer while doing. The thing here is as members of MI-6 and the CIA, there ought to be an underlying assumption that the spy is principled; they are loyal to their country or cause. Yet that is not evident in Claire or Ray.

As for the acting, it is nothing extraordinary. Frankly, Julia Roberts was better or more involved in her role in Charlie Wilson's War (reviewed here!) than in Duplicity and Clive Owen seems to be relying mostly on his penetrating eyes to sell himself as Ray. In fact, as far as the acting goes, all Duplicity does is force the question of why Clive Owen isn't playing James Bond. The other principle actors, Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti, fall along the lines of expected greatness. Their roles are remarkably small, they do them as well as they can and there is not much substance to their acting as a result.

Ultimately, Duplicity is a remarkably average corporate spy flick where everything blandly progresses toward a final revelation in the last five minutes that would be interesting if the rest of the movie had been worthwhile up until that point.

For other works with Tom Wilkinson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol
The Green Hornet
Valkyrie
Batman Begins
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind
The Girl With The Pearl Earring
Shakespeare In Love
Smilla’s Sense Of Snow

5/10

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

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

Finally! Pacing Almost Kills A Movie Where Kirsten Dunst Plays A Worthwhile Character!

The Good: Well-written, well-constructed, Generally decent acting, Characters are fine
The Bad: Jim Carrey's acting (like other actors), PACING!
The Basics: In a generally worthwhile movie, Jim Carrey and Kirsten Dunst give performances almost worth their pay by making a slow movie work out.


There are two actors in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind that I've never seen in a role that makes me believe in their hype. There aren't a lot of actors who are popular who I sit stupefied to figure out why they appeal to the masses. Adam Sandler was one until I saw Punch-Drunk Love, and later 50 First Dates and Mr. Deeds. Kirsten Dunst and Jim Carrey are finally going off the list both with their place in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind. Lately, I've watched numerous movies with Dunst and I just don't see it. She's flat in Spider-man and annoying in Elizabethtown. My beef with Jim Carrey - other than his inability to act - is that whenever I've seen him in a role where he earnestly portrays someone other than his In Living Color quasi-crazy persona (which I don't necessarily assume is indicative of Jim Carrey, private citizen), he is simply imitating the performance of another - usually less well-paid actor. So, for example, in Batman Forever, Jim Carrey's performance is Jim Carrey As Matthew Frewer as The Riddler. In Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Carrey is Billy Campbell (from Once and Again) and in his manic moments of understanding, he plays Peter Krause as Joel Barish.

Joel Barish, having inadvertently learned that his girlfriend Clementine Kruczynski has had their relationship entirely erased from her memory, decided to undergo a procedure to have Clementine erased from his memory. As Joel is having his memory erased, he begins to regret the decision to eradicate Clementine from his past while the workers from the company performing the procedure are getting stoned around him. As Joel tries desperately to store the memories of Clementine in areas of his mind not associated with her, the workers rededicate themselves to fixing the problems and completing their assignment.

There are two big twists in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind; the obvious, you'll see it coming a mile away if you're awake and not braindead twist and the clever twist that makes the movie ultimately work. Basically, if you are even mildly experienced with movie twists and you are paying attention at the beginning of the movie, the first twist will be unsurprising. In fact, writers Charlie Kaufman, Pierre Bismuth, and Michel Gondry drop a number of hints to let the viewer know exactly where the movie is going.

The second twist is out of the blue and it's perfect. I doff my cap to Kaufman (I liked Being John Malkovich, too), Bismuth and Gondry for creating a movie that gives viewers exactly what they expect under the guise - via technique of rearranging the order of key events in the movie - of faux cleverness only to make a reveal that is actually spectacularly clever.

And in the process, director Michel Gondry gets the performance out of Kirsten Dunst I've been waiting to see. In Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, Dunst plays Mary the receptionist at the company that does the memory erasing. Her character's backstory and resolution is masterfully played out by Dunst with a subtlety that I've not seen in her. Here, Dunst is finally substantive, not vacant, emotive without being annoying. She's worth watching.

Kate Winslet, who plays Clementine, does an admirable job in the role. Clementine is an erratic character, but Winslet plays her mood swings with realistic motion. Winslet is able to go from calm to manic, sensitive to raging in instants and she has the ability to soften her face and eyes at moments to make the viewer completely believe in her empathy and love for Joel. It's the best I've seen her act since Hamlet.

Which brings us to Jim Carrey. Carrey is Carrey here, but he's playing mature and guarded, so his performance comes off like an imitation of Billy Campbell in the early episodes of Once And Again. And that's a great role and Carrey's impression is spot on. But the movie has the feel of "Why didn't they just use Billy Campbell?" until late in the movie when there are moments - as Joel is freaking out - where the viewer thinks "Why didn't they just use Peter Krause?"

It doesn't matter who they use; the real killer in Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is the pacing. There is the opening section that establishes a tone. It's quirky, it's moody, it's dark and it's dreary. But we get it. Joel Barish is a lost man. He meets Clementine, they seem happy. Credits roll. After the title sequence, the movie drags. It drags as the story is constructed in a way that tells the story to try to make sense and to set up the supposed first (non-surprising) twist. But it's slow. It's Adaptation slow (Damn you, Charlie Kaufman!). And all that saves the movie from being an abysmal failure is the special effects in the late middle and then the real twist. Otherwise, the pacing is a death march here. I mean, there are stretches of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind where the viewer will scream at the television "Get on with it!" and "We GET it already!"

It's slow.

But it works out in a satisfying way. And for a movie where Jim Carrey and Kirsten Dunst give performances I'd be keen to see again, it's just enough. Charlie Kaufman . . . I'm watching you . . .

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit 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.
| | |