The Next Great Fantasy World Is China?! The Great Wall

The Good: Special effects, Good performances, Interesting characters
The Bad: Very simple plot
The Basics: The Great Wall is a visually-engaging film that is very simple.


With the popularity of Game Of Thrones on HBO and the end of the marketable Middle Earth books, moviegoers are looking for the next big mythical world to emotionally invest in. The Great Wall implicitly makes the argument that ancient China is a setting worth exploring. The Great Wall blends history and mythology, character and special effects to create a story of heroism that is likely to appeal to those who love fantasy.

The Great Wall is not as sprawling or complicated as Warcraft (reviewed here!) and in some ways that makes it much more accessible. Despite the flash and physical scope of the film, The Great Wall is essentially a simple siege story with a very basic morality aspect thrown in. The lack of complexity does not make The Great Wall bad, though, but it is easy to get swept away by the armor and sprawling mountains and come to believe the film is bigger than it actually is.

Opening with the disclaimer that this is one of the legends of the Great Wall, William Garin is being chased on horseback through the desert with his comrades and are only able to evade their pursuers through luck and cunning. Garin and his team of six men (down by twenty from when the expedition began) are searching for gunpowder, which they have only heard of as rumor and at night, their camp is attacked by something they do not recognize and only see clearly in the amputated limb one leaves behind. Garin and Pero Tovar survive the fight with the creature and are scouting when they are attacked again by riders. They are corralled to the Great Wall, where military forces are defending China. After being interrogated by Lin Mei, a general who speaks English thanks to the tutelage of Sir Ballard, they are imprisoned and brought to the top of the Great Wall.

There, they witness an attack on the Wall by massive reptiles. Freed from their bonds during the fight, Garin and Tovar take down a couple of the creatures and earn the begrudging respect of Lin Mei. The Westerners learn of the Taotie, whose queen breeds an army that attacks every sixty years and whose legions now threaten the capital city. With its population, the military leaders believe that the Queen Taotie will be able to breed enough soldiers to cover the entire Earth, wiping out humanity. After a nighttime attack kills the leader of the army, Lin Mei is promoted and she agrees to try Garin's idea, which is to capture a Taotie to find the creatures' weaknesses. While the military captures a Taotie soldier, Sir Ballard and Tovar flee the Great Wall with a supply of "black powder." Despite immediately mistrusting Garin, Lin Mei is convinced that his desire to stay and fight the Taotie is legitimate. Together, Lin Mei and William Garin mount a daring expedition to find the queen and kill her to eliminate the threat the Taotie represent to Earth!'

The Great Wall very quickly sets up obvious dialectics. William Garin is a mercenary, while Lin Mei fights for the common good of her people; Garin distrusts everyone, Lin Mei survives because she can trust her soldiers and they trust her. Even the adversaries are set up as part of a very simple conflict; the emperor is using his army to protect China and the world; the Taotie Queen is an invader who fell from the sky and threatens to overwhelm the world with her mindless drones.

The plot of The Great Wall is similarly simple. The warriors must repel the Taotie in order to save the kingdom. William Garin and Pero Tovar must choose to join their fight or steal the black powder and flee the Wall with it. So, it is somewhat unsurprising that the film offers both options; Garin takes the high road, Tovar chooses avarice. Thematically, there is something very unsatisfying about the film's resolution, but in general terms, the dialectics are well-established and decently executed.

The characters in The Great Wall play out like very simple archetypes, but they are well-performed by Matt Damon (Garin), Tian Jing (Lin Mei), and Pedro Pascal (Pero Tovar). It is weird seeing Willem Dafoe in such a monolithic supporting role as he is in The Great Wall, where he plays Sir Ballard, but he makes the most of it. Tian Jing dominates the screen as Lin Mei; she plays the military leader with a precision and control of her body language and tone that make it entirely believable that she could rise to such a position of power. Damon is good as Garin, but he takes a back seat to Jing in every scene they share; he plays the mercenary fine (albeit without the charisma of, say, Han Solo), but she plays the military leader masterfully.

The effects in The Great Wall are good. I found the waves of Taotie attacking to get a bit repetitive-feeling, but they are well-rendered. Between the realistic rendition of the Taotie and the brightly colored armor for the various divisions within the army, The Great Wall looks wonderful.

The Great Wall is a stylish-looking film that makes a simple story seem exceptional and that makes for enjoyable, if not objectively incredible, movie.

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
War On Everyone
Underworld: Blood Wars
La La Land
Passengers
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

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.
| | |

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.
| | |

Payback For The Next Generation: John Wick

The Good: Decent acting, Good action sequences, Cool protagonist and supporting characters
The Bad: Entirely simplistic plot
The Basics: After the death of his wife, the grieving John Wick finds himself drawn back into the criminal underground when a Russian mobster kills his dog and steals his car.


Every now and then, I find an action movie that is simplistic, but laudable, or at least easy to recommend and equally easy to enjoy. For many years, my gold standard of such movies has been Payback (reviewed here!). So, when I continued to hear good things about John Wick I decided to check it out. While I enjoyed the film, it is, for all intents and purposes, Payback remade.

John Wick is an equally straightforward action thriller and directors David Leitch and Chad Stahelski have a decent sense of style to make the film watchable. But they and writer Derek Kolstad are not winning any points for originality with the film. Instead, John Wick starts with a simplistic premise and, because of the film’s opening narrative conceit, works to the only logical conclusion an attentive viewer can expect. The film is enjoyable, but not highbrow, and the fact that it is set-up as a flashback robs the film of much of its spontaneity and suspense. That said, it succeeds as entertainment and as a surprisingly satisfying revenge flick.

Days after he buries his wife, John Wick is bloody and near-death; collapsing and he watches a video left by his lost love. The film flashes back to Helen’s death, John being visited by Marcus and receiving a posthumous gift from Helen; a dog. John slowly adapts to having Daisy in his house, life and car. After a young thug takes notice of John’s 1969 Mustang, he is visited in the night by the thugs who kill Daisy and take the car. The thug is Iosef Tarasov, son of the Russian mobster Viggo Tarasov and when Iosef takes John Wick’s car to Aurelio, even Aurelio wants nothing to do with it. The reason is simple; John Wick is an incredible assassin, the one who built Viggo Tarasov’s empire by eliminating his competition.

Learning the identity of the car thief, John Wick calls Viggo and when Viggo refuses to turn Iosef over to him (or make any sort of deal), Wick begins a spree of killing and destruction that puts him on a direct course for Iosef and Viggo. Viggo puts a bounty out on Wick’s head, but when the first waves of assassins are easily dispatched in Wick’s house, Wick moves into the criminal hotel. Protecting himself and the underground, Winston turns over the location of Iosef and that leads Wick to hunt the young man through Little Russia, destroying much of Viggo’s infrastructure and leverage in the process. Inspired by an ever-rising bounty, assassins like Perkins and Marcus turn on Wick, even in the confines of the protected hotel. Left on his own, John Wick tracks down the son and his father for revenge and to get the price lifted from his head.

John Wick is characterized beautifully by Viggo as “The man you send to kill the boogeyman.” The fear Aurelio and Viggo have relative to the apparently easy-to-subdue Wick is made understandable when Viggo’s initial barrage of men are wiped out with startling ease. John Wick is one of the few such films based upon an almost entirely believable premise; because Wick eliminated most of the mobsters and assassins in the City for Viggo, he knows Viggo’s weak spots and the surviving members of the underworld who are still active. As a result, he lets several people live (and they are grateful for the opportunity to run away) and he slays through the rest with ease.

The thing is, the initial attack on John Wick aside, John Wick is an entirely sensible movie so far as revenge movies go. Wick is retired from a lifestyle, but retains all of the skills and contacts he had. So, of course, he could get a clean-up crew to help him dispose of the bodies he racks up.

What makes John Wick more watchable than the average action revenge film – outside the realistic motivation of a man in mourning who continues to lose the things that are most important to him – is the general sense of realism to the film. John Wick may be the ultimate revenge fantasy, but Wick has to contend with realistic issues like police and hotel management calling him out for noise violations! Chaos does not ensue as fast in a loud Russian nightclub as it does in an otherwise empty house because of the loud music. The directors got the sound engineering absolutely right for a film where noise is a real-world problem.

Like Payback, John Wick has a delightful sense of irony as viewers watch the protagonist kill his way to the top while all the while wondering, “Why the hell didn’t this bad guy just give him what he wanted in the beginning?!” The problem with John Wick is that the viewer waits for the film to get back to where it began, knowing that – against all odds and reason – John Wick must survive until then.

On the plus side, John Wick has an excellent cast which is used well. Led by Keanu Reeves, John Wick includes the talents of Willem Dafoe, Ian McShane, Adrianne Palicki, John Leguizamo, Lance Reddick and Alfie Allen (as Iosef, a role that makes one wonder if the Game Of Thrones actor can play anything other than a terrified maniac). Reeves is great in the brooding role of John Wick and he sells the action scenes well. He and the supporting cast play off one another perfectly to create a very real sense of a world where this sort of thing happens all the time and people don’t get too terribly attached to one another.

Ultimately, John Wick is well-executed escapist entertainment, even if it is not particularly original.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
Paddington
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
Comet
Horrible Bosses 2
10,000 Days
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

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.
| | |

A Gruesome Build-Up To An Imaginative Last Act: The Last Temptation Of Christ!

The Good: Direction, Acting, Final act
The Bad: Alternatively boring and gory, A LONG way to go before it gets original and interesting.
The Basics: The Last Temptation Of Christ works its way up to being a theological recasting of Jacob’s Ladder.


My relationship with the film The Last Temptation Of Christ is an interesting one. Until tonight, I had not seen the movie, but it had a profound effect on my development as a liberal and as a rational human being. When I was in middle school, The Last Temptation Of Christ was released theatrically and one of the people in my class, a Ukrainian immigrant, was part of the local protests against the film. His mother and him were out picketing against the showing of The Last Temptation Of Christ in the local art theater and I remember asking him, “What is so bad about the movie?” And he told me that the movie was blasphemous and I asked him what about it was blasphemous. He dodged the question with pat answers and I distinctly recall asking him what he saw in the film that was so disturbing as to be worth protesting, a question I asked with my usual youthful, earnest curiosity. His response was that he had not seen the movie and that caused me to ask instantly, “How can you criticize and protest something you have not even seen?” Yup, that was the moment I credit as being the moment I became a fully rational being.

So, tonight, my wife and I sat down to watch The Last Temptation Of Christ. I had been told – in the intervening years – that it was something of a death dream, like Jacob’s Ladder (reviewed here!). Having finished it, my disappointment comes more from the fact that the hype was once again far greater than the film that it surrounded. The Last Temptation Of Christ is hardly an audacious film. It is not as creative as Dogma (reviewed here!) and I cannot really understand why the film garnered so much controversy. It is not as gory or pointless as The Passion Of The Christ (reviewed here!) and most of the film is a surprisingly straightforward retelling of the story of Jesus Christ. It takes a very long time to get around to being anything truly original. It is also worth noting that I have never read the novel upon which The Last Temptation Of Christ is based; this is a pure review of the film only.

Jesus Christ is a crossmaker for the Romans who has no particular agenda. Judas, working for the Zealots, killing Romans and working against the Empire, is given orders to kill Jesus. Judas does not carry out the directive and journeys out into the desert. There, he is tempted by the devil for forty days and forty nights and is then baptized by John The Baptist. After that, he begins preaching love and the philosophy of the ax (cutting away the old ways), which makes him a target for the Israelites.

Eventually, Pontius Pilate sentences Jesus to death on the cross, where the devil appears before him. Then, he has a vision of his life as an ordinary man who is able to marry, have children and live under the radar while his disciples are persecuted.

The Last Temptation Of Christ features a ridiculous disclaimer at the outset announcing to the viewer that it is a work of fiction and given how it resolves itself, it is hard for me to imagine why the Religious Right actually had an issue with the film. The Last Temptation Of Christ is much more the story of Jesus Christ than it is not. The final resolution puts Jesus on the familiar path after a remarkably brief interlude where Jesus experiences temptation. It’s a lot of boring and familiar story until the last act.

The characters of Jesus and Judas in The Last Temptation Of Christ are interesting characters. Jesus is filled with self-doubt and the desire to get the voices out of his head. Willem Dafoe plays Jesus with uncertainty and in a way that makes it almost seem like he is schizophrenic in the beginning. Harvey Keitel’s Judas is mercenaric and angry and he and Dafoe play off one another exceptionally well. The Last Temptation Of Christ is a good character study of an uncertain character finding his way and a righteous, angry character.

But we see that in innumerable movies. The fact that it is set in biblical times and/or that the characters are recognizable religious icons is unimportant. This is, for the most part, just another retelling of the story of Christ and its original aspects hardly justify the first two hours of the film. Martin Scorsese directs the film well, but the story is hardly as audacious as it originally promised.

On the Criterion Collection DVD, The Last Temptation Of Christ has an engrossing commentary track and featurettes. For those who find the source material engaging, the bonus features are impressive enough to make one want to buy the DVD.

For other films with a theological bent to them, check out my reviews of:
Ben-Hur
Constantine
Left Behind

4/10

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

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

Why My Review Of The Clearing Is The Only One You Should Read

The Good: Excellent acting, Decent characters, Intriguing plot, Generally good pacing
The Bad: "Twist" is not much of one, Somewhat problematic casting/character design
The Basics: When Arnold and Wayne meet, The Clearing explores how dependent the lower middle class is on the forces of production in a generally entertaining movie.


Have you ever heard the phrase, "One good turn deserves another?" I'm trying to apply that to a review, perhaps in a bit of a surreal way. I picked up The Clearing, a movie I was surprised I had never heard of despite its powerful cast (Robert Redford, Willem Dafoe, and Helen Mirren). I picked it up and watched it without reading the back, without reading reviews, a cold viewing. Now, obviously, I can't write a completely cold review to give readers the same experience, but I've decided to try an experimental review for a movie that tries something experimental in order to recommend a movie and give the viewer the best chance of a cold viewing while preparing them to like the movie.

This review will, therefore, not follow my standard approach of introduction, plot review, character/acting/effect assessment and/or social commentary. It will be that type of review, but I won't mention anything about the plot. Those who enjoy this review and play along - by picking up The Clearing - will hopefully leave comments to support the idea that a cold viewing or that the review (mostly) adequately prepared the viewer for the experience. It also hinges some on not reading other reviews (sorry!) because they might say something about the plot. Here goes!

Pieter Jan Brugge, a writer/director I had honestly never heard of before, co-wrote and directed a short film in 2004 called The Clearing. It stars Robert Redford, Helen Mirren, and Willem Dafoe and the film essentially follows two parallel stories which the awake viewer will easily observe are out of sync. That is that the "a-story" is not occurring at the same pace as the "b-story." To Pieter Jan Brugge's credit, he doesn't seem to be trying to be terribly clever about it. This is not a The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) where there is a huge reversal at the end that the viewer sits up and says "ah-ha!" Instead, it seems as the director wants to create an emotional gravity to the events of The Clearing that is best expressed through the mirroring of the character's journeys.

Wayne Hayes, a very successful businessman, is married to Eileen Hayes and the two seem like a very settled, busy couple at the top of the socioeconomic ladder. Wayne is preoccupied with business and on the day the film begins, he pays more attention to the dog than to his wife. Eileen seems quite concerned with keeping up appearances and while she appears to have real affection for Wayne, she prioritizes her plans that allow them togetherness at the end of the day through gentle nagging in a way that makes Wayne's reactions somewhat understandable. Wayne has the affect of a man who has been going about the same day for years, including the dialogue he has with his wife.

Arnold Mack, then, is a man plagued by a sense of being wronged and a desperation to achieve the economic stability he feels was robbed of him. He meets Wayne and the two interact, which cause the action of the movie and all of the conflict. Arnold is the representation of lower-middle class desperation to hang onto the crumbs given by the upper class. In an almost Marxist way, Arnold's interaction with Wayne becomes a demand for the have-nots to get from the haves.

What makes the movie work is that neither Arnold nor Wayne are reduced to types. While Arnold has an understanding of his economic role and the status of Wayne, the two talk as individuals. Wayne exhibits empathy for Arnold's condition, he expresses some sadness over the plight of Wayne's family as a result of economic downturns. Arnold, for his part, continues to exhibit his understanding of Wayne's humanity. They talk about the importance of family, love, the nature of truth and their children. Their dialog becomes a journey toward understanding and one might argue that the resolution to the movie is director Brugge's ultimate statement on class understanding.

While Wayne and Arnold progress a dialogue and relationship, Eileen begins a journey of her own. In Brugge's intriguing way, he creates a new relationship between Wayne and Eileen by Eileen relating to Wayne's absence. While Wayne is with Arnold, Eileen begins to relearn her husband and her journey is one of loneliness and rediscovery. It is a clever balance as Eileen explores her feelings for herself and her family through accepting Wayne's absence, while threaded throughout her story she begins to learn more about Wayne and his importance to her life. She brings a very human journey to a story that could easily be reduced to a class conflict.

A lot of what makes the movie work is embodied by Helen Mirren, who plays Eileen. Mirren is required to play off herself, a good amount of time. The Clearing has moments that have an almost PBS or BBC feel where reaction shots for Mirren are followed out of rooms to develop the full emotional impact of what she is going through. Mirren creates a character who is boldly progressing along a compelling character journey from accessory housewife to actualized individual. A lot of the movie survives because of Mirren's ability to create subtle affect with facial movements, furtive glances and the way she carries her body.

Willem Dafoe and Robert Redford play off one another quite well, but there is a problem with them. You might not guess it - somehow director Pieter Jan Brugge makes it happen - but Willem Dafoe and Robert Redford look an awful lot alike. Okay, they don't naturally, no. But Brugge manages to light the two, use camera angles and somehow emphasize the facial structure and flaws of each man's eyes, forehead and jaws to suggest a bond between them. Seriously. I waited throughout The Clearing for the revelation that Wayne and Arnold were half-brothers, so closely are they made to resemble one another at points in the movie. I mention this because it surprised me that the two could resemble each other, especially when perspiring, and that it creates an atmosphere that ultimately has a sloppy quality to it as opposed to an intelligent one. Unless, of course, one wishes to argue that Brugge is illustrating a bond between the middle and upper classes vis a vis Arnold and Wayne. Brugge could - if we wish to be generous - be suggesting that both Arnold and Wayne are slaves to the same system through their physical similarities. I would say it's a stretch to justify casting that was poorly conceived or direction that was purposely misleading.

Dafoe continues his history of strong roles with Arnold Mack. Dafoe wisely plays Arnold as gently cunning, smart and desperate as opposed to any way over-the-top. Dafoe wisely emphasizes the humanity of Arnold's desperation at the hands of his employment circumstance as opposed to any elements of his life and circumstances he has control over. He plays off Redford with a natural chemistry and conversational rhythm that is very real.

Similarly, Robert Redford manages to create a fairly memorable persona with Wayne. Wayne is clearly a man used to being in control and Redford infuses the dignity of Wayne with eyes that express fear over the potential loss of all he has worked for. Despite the easy dialogue between Redford and Dafoe as they play off one another, Redford always maintains an air - with Dafoe - of humanity that grounds the movie.

Ultimately, The Clearing works, though it is certainly not a great movie. The problem with the casting is a big one. The plot is so straightforward as to be unsurprising and while Pieter Jan Brugge plays with narrative time to illustrate and emphasize the relationships in the movie over the plot, the resolution is not terribly surprising.

At ninety-five minutes long, the viewer need not wait long for anything to happen in The Clearing and the pace is generally one that moves along, despite the PBS-type moments with Eileen. Is it worth a viewing? Certainly. Anyone who likes a decent character study or has issues with the executions of capitalism will find something to enjoy in The Clearing as ultimately, it is the story of two relationships personal and economic and how they relate to one another. And the acting surfs the movie to a place that makes it worthwhile.

For other works with Helen Mirren, check out my reviews of:
Inkheart
The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy
Gosford Park
Painted Lady

6.5/10

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

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

| | |

Moby Dick As An Eccentric Comedy: The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou

The Good: Moments of humor, Well-Acted, Quirky parody
The Bad: PACING!, Unoriginal characters, Pacing.
The Basics: A disappointing directoral follow-up to The Royal Tenenbaums finds Wes Anderson putting Bill Murray and a boatload of misfits out to sea to fight a shark, pirates and awkward silences.


Let me open by saying that I loved the movie The Royal Tenenbaums, which was written and directed by Wes Anderson. That movie was clever, well orchestrated, funny and tragic. And at the end of the day, despite a moment of two of slowness, it was entertaining. Thus, I dismissed all of the critical press I had read about Wes Anderson's new film The Life Aquatic. I figured the reviewers were wrong, that someone who made the highly entertaining The Royal Tenenbaums could not fall so far so fast.

I was wrong.

The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou is not a bad movie, not by a long shot. But it is not worthy of your time and attention either. If you have not seen The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou is likely to compel you to. If you see this movie and want to see an even better one, The Royal Tenenbaums awaits. If you see this movie and hate it, go watch The Royal Tenenbaums, it is a lot better.

Why? The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou is like The Royal Tenenbaums - LITE. Anderson, writing here with Noah Baumbach, takes the quirky character types he skillfully wove together in The Royal Tenenbaums and creates a similarly zany atmosphere. As well, Anderson directs with an amazing sense of soundtrack and movement (when there is movement). But gone is the interpersonal empathy, the compelling humanization that makes us care about the characters. Instead, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou feels like a shadow of a movie we have seen before and leaves us disappointed.

Steve Zissou, a noted documentary maker, presents his latest magnum opus, a diving expedition that does horribly wrong when his partner is killed by a shark off camera. Depressed at the loss and the direction his life is heading, Zissou gets his film crew together to go in search of the shark that killed his partner.

Zissou is accompanied by a protective assistant named Klaus Daimler, financed by his somewhat estranged wife Eleanor and interviewed by a young, pregnant reporter named Jane. Also on his expedition is Ned Plimpton, a young man who Steve believes may be his son by a relationship he had many many years ago. Also along is a bond stooge, a Portugese-singing David Bowie cover artist, and a rival oceanographer.

The characters are certainly interesting, but they feel familiar, like Wes Anderson has put together another eclectic ensemble that speaks and acts in a way very similar to an eclectic group he put together before. Zissou is interesting, as are most of the people around him, but not interesting enough in a different way to carry the attention of the viewer.

My last heads up is to the costume designer. The costume designer put a hat on Seu Jorge in a scene where Zissou's crew is fighting pirates that makes the scene. In fact, the movie has moments that are wonderfully funny, but those parts are not sustained.

In fact, they are broken up by long stretches of people talking. Slowly. The real reason The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou fails is that it fails to capture the audience with a belief that it is going anywhere. It does not feel like it is going anywhere and when it starts to move, it is going slowly and then it keeps going slowly and when it looks like it might pick up, there is a long scene where people speak filled with a lot of meaningful pauses, then a lot of waiting and then we just stop caring. Then the movie picks up, and is fast for an incident, then there's some talking, a significant scene that moves along nicely, then the movie is over. Except that it keeps going on.

The speed at which events happen is agonizingly slow. It is difficult to watch and the singlemost reason I will not subject myself to this movie again. Who will like The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou? People who have not seen The Royal Tenenbaums. Is Bill Murray good in the movie? Yes. Can you live without seeing his performance here? Absolutely. Because at the end of the day, the writing to sustain this movie as something new and different and vital is just not there and 118 minutes of The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou feels at least twice that long.

In a bad way.

For other works by Wes Anderson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Darjeeling Limited
The Squid And The Whale
The Royal Tenenbaums
Rushmore
Bottle Rocket

4/10

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

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

| | |

John Carter Might Look Good On The Big Screen, But . . .

The Good: Visually engaging, Moments of action
The Bad: Acting is largely terrible, Light on character development, Plot is mundane at best.
The Basics: When John Carter is taken off to Mars, the viewer is given a visual marvel that is ultimately insubstantial.


Every year, it seems, I get my hopes up for a movie I truly know nothing about. Sure, I’m jazzed for Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers later this year, but when I saw the trailers for John Carpenter, I thought I would root for this strange, wonderful-looking science fiction epic. Having attended a preview screening of the film, I am once again in that place I too-often find myself after I get my hopes up; I am disappointed. In the case of John Carter, I am not sure if “utterly disappointed” applies, but I do know I am pretty disappointed.

The source of my disappointment is simple: John Carter is campy, poorly-acted and in so many ways mundane. What looked like it would be a sprawling epic turns into a series of obvious conflicts with a protagonist who is hardly worth rooting for. Instead, I spent much of the time watching John Carter waiting for something – anything – to happen that would make me care about the title character. Unfortunately, that moment never came and I left the more than two hour movie feeling bored. It is also worth noting that I have not read any of the books upon which John Carter is based. As a result, this is a very pure review of the film John Carter.

John Carter, who fought for the Confederate Army and has ended up in Arizona looking for gold. Chased by Powell and a group of Native American Indians, John Carter is abducted and taken to Mars. On Mars, he quickly discovers that the lower gravity affords him greater strength and agility than he ever had on Earth. Joining the green Martian Tharks – they call Mars “Barsoom” – Carter fights his way to a prominent position in the tribe and he begins to find life on Mars more worthwhile than his terrestrial life.

When the Tharks capture Dejah Thoris, a red-skinned Martian from the Helium tribe, John Carter feels the abduction is unjust. Liberating her, Carter flees with her. Her rescue puts Carter at the center of planetwide conflicts that force him to use his strength, stamina and smarts to both survive and unify the fractured planet.

I’m not exactly sure who John Carter is intended for, other than those who are already fans of the pulp science fiction novels upon which the movie is based. John Carter suffers from being seriously campy and campy in an earnest way. John Carter is campy in the way that Sky Captain And The World Of Tomorrow mercilessly parodied, but John Carter does not seem to realize it is truly that hokey. Instead, the film progresses with a serious tone even through its more unintentionally laughable moments. It’s like Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time (reviewed here!) but set on Mars. It has one gimmick, a lot of special effects and ultimately adds up to nothing at all impressive or in the range of its potential.

Like The Sands Of Time, Disney assembled a surprisingly wonderful cast for John Carter, with Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, Thomas Hayden Church and Bryan Cranston all appearing physically or as CG constructs with their vocal talents. John Carter has a suitably impressive cast . . . for the supporting parts.

What John Carter lacks entirely is a performance by the lead protagonist that sells the new reality to the audience. Taylor Kitsch is, in a word, horrible as the title character. To be fair to Kitsch, John Carter is a sword and sorcery type fantasy movie set on Mars and it seems like one of the big criteria for the character of John Carter has to be that he looks damn good without a shirt on. In that regard, Kitsch delivers. But beyond that, he is utterly unlikable in the role of John Carter. Kitsch is stiff, distant and physically withdrawn far too often to make John Carter a likable or plausible protagonist. Instead, he lacks a spark or any sense of quirky individuality that would otherwise sell the viewer on such a fantastic character. John Carter may be disaffected and morose, but Kitsch seems that way playing him.

Kitsch is paired with Lynn Collins, whose primary qualification seems to be that she looks good and is near the height of Taylor Kitsch. Her bright eyes look more vacant than expressive far too often.

While John Carter has fairly decent computer-generated effects, the 3-D effects are nothing to write home about. I was much more impressed by the effects in the reworked 3-D version of The Phantom Menace. While one might expect the digital landscapes of Mars to be wonderful in the 3-D medium, director Andrew Stanton does not make very good use of the technology. As well, John Carter suffers from editing that ranges from mediocre to terrible. There are a number of sequences that feature awkward cuts and surprisingly rough transitions.

Ultimately, John Carter is a science fiction epic that does not engage the viewer or make a bolder statement than “look at what we can put on screen.” Sadly, that is not enough.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
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
Tron

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movie reviews I have written.

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

A Phenomenal Satire Exploding With Relevance: American Dreamz Delivers!

The Good: Excellent acting, FUNNY, Good characters, Universal jibes
The Bad: Pacing near the end, Slightly dated
The Basics: In a terrifically funny parody of our times, American Dreamz takes shots at the United States of America's president, obsession with reality television and overall attitude.


[Note: This review was originally written during the Bush Administration and I decided to keep the original opening because, like the film, captured a very clear sense of time and place. Enjoy! - W.L. Swarts]

American Dreamz, a comedy about politics and reality television written by Paul Weitz and my reaction afterwards was simple, "Why hadn't I heard more about this movie when it was out?!"

American Dreamz follows two parallel storylines as the President of the United States, a Bush-like buffoon named Stanton wins re-election, reads a newspaper and is shocked to discover the world is much bigger than the United States while at the same time, Martin Tweed, executive producer and judge of the wildly popular American Idol-type show American Dreamz hunts for talent to make the new season of the show even more popular than its previous ones. He finds his talent in the form of Sally Kendoo, a young woman who thirsts for stardom and has real talent. Also on the show is Omer Obeidi, an Arab who pretty much flunked out of terrorist school and who is activated for martyrdom only when he becomes a contestant on American Dreamz and the President is announced as a guest judge for the final episode.

What's worst about this movie is so closely tied to what is best about it that it's almost impossible to start my review with the low-point and make it clear I am discussing the film's weakness. American Dreamz is the satire of our time, right now, 2004-2006. This is it. Paul Weitz brilliantly pokes fun at every institution and popular culture/political individual of this time and place in the world. And he does it universally, so it's not just a poke at the American president, the American Idol contestants, the soldiers, the suicide bombers, the television executives, it's ALL of them. And it's brilliant and funny. And it will be forgotten as one of the best movies of the decade or such because in two years, it will be so dated as to be obsolete. Dust-covered copies of this DVD will be pulled off the shelf in sixty years and shown to grandchildren who will shake their heads and wonder why people would think it was funny to have an idiot for a president and that television would be ruled by tweens who rely on the American public for gratification and reinforcement.

In short, there is nothing so universal about American Dreamz and that is its weakness; it is destined to be forgotten as the United States works to regain its respectable status in the world and eliminate the black stains of warmongering and bullying of the past six years.

But right now, this is hilarious and it's what we need as American citizens who cannot stand the things being carried out in our name. This is the chance to laugh about the follies of our times. And it is all about our time. President Stanton is a clear George Bush parody, embodied by the stubborn refusal to read the news, to listen to others and to face reality. His Chief of Staff is a Cheney/Rove parody that plays like the MadTV Frankenstein-esque Cheney for the hour and a half of the movie - and I see that as a good thing. Sally Kendoo is a clear parody of Kelly Clarkson and the choice to parody Clarkson is actually a decent one; Clarkson is clearly the most talented individual to come out of the American Idol scene and as such parodying her is not simply picking on the novelty contestants, which are represented in the movie by Omer and an Israeli contestant.

American Dreamz works because all of the characters are types. Sally Kendoo is the archetypal will poke her eyes out for success, win at all costs, American youth who has talent and is ready to exploit herself and her talent to succeed. Martin Tweed is the embodiment of every negative stereotype of a Simon Cowell who has achieved success in a way that does not stimulate him and who must remain at the top of his game, lest he lose everything he has built. And even the minor characters work because they are simply "types" and parodies. Indeed, the name of Marcia Gay Harden's character is simply "First Lady Stanton."

And Harden's portrayal of First Lady Stanton is enviable and one of the few chinks in the otherwise tight armor of American Dreamz. First Lady Stanton is articulate, even if somewhat cowed, and her interactions with President Stanton make the viewer long for the days of strong First Ladies who would be an asset to the nation. Other than her, all the "types" fit our current circumstances and they work.

They work because the actors playing them are devoted to selling the jokes and the portrayals of our times. Sam Golzari is hilarious dancing to show tunes in a tent at the terrorist training camp. Hugh Grant, looking somewhat older than when previous seen, is morose and charming, flashy and deeply sarcastic and he makes us forget he is Hugh Grant. After the first few minutes on screen, Grant IS Martin Tweed.

Mandy Moore deserves a lot of credit for her role as Sally Kendoo. Moore is smart and turns her emotions on a dime to make a joke for the movie. Some of the best comic timing comes between her, Jennifer Coolidge (her character's mother) and the agent they've hired in figuring out Kendoo's story for the show. Moore whips out some of the funniest lines in succession with a deadpan delivery that is amazing.

Dennis Quaid, who I never would have guessed could do it, does the most amazing parody of George W. Bush throughout the film. He adopts a swaggering, frat-boy type attitude and has moments where he is able to disengage from all reality with a clueless look on his face that masterfully create a character who is a clear interpretation of the person he seeks to embody. Quaid is given some challenging lines to deliver without breaking that mold, most notably during the President's appearance on American Dreamz and he does it admirably. One suspects those lines that Quaid delivers are pure wish fulfillment on the part of writer/director Weitz, who no doubt desperately wishes to hear them spoken by Bush.

The person who steals the show is Willem Dafoe. Dafoe is brilliant as the sinister, manipulative, evil genius puppetmaster Chief of Staff. Dafoe does an extraordinary job creating a Rovian Cheney character who manipulates the President, down to telling him exactly what to say via a transmitter in the President's ear. And throughout, Dafoe laces the performance with subtle strokes from Weitz that are scathing, wherein the Chief of Staff shrinks away from all forms of acknowledgment or responsibility, even literally slinking out of a spotlight. Dafoe is instantly recognizable for the character he is meant to represent and he is utterly hilarious in the role. I would never have guess him for it, but he sells it flawlessly.

Writer and director Paul Weitz deserves a lot of credit for American Dreamz. It's a smart movie and it works on a number of levels. From the parody of the names, it's no coincidence that the lead contestant is named "Kendoo" (i.e. "can do") and the President's name is meant to sound so close to "Stalin," to the most subtle joke near the climax of the movie which I think is one of the funniest (when Liberty is thrown in his car and taken from American Dreamz, the window in front of where he is being protected is rolled down), Weitz creates a movie that is smart and funny and working on multiple levels. He deserves credit for that.

Ultimately, though, the movie ends and we wake up to a new, higher body count and politicians who continue to abrogate responsibility and our laughter turns to discomfort and we envy Weitz's created world, where things change in the significant things and the only things that stay the same are the ways people are exploited on reality television for their own perceived gain.

For other films featuring Hugh Grant, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Did You Hear About The Morgans?
Love Actually
Bridget Jones's Diary

8/10

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

© 2011, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Return Of The Blockbusters, Without The Quirky Brilliance: Spider-Man

The Good: Moments of acting, Moments of story, Moments of character
The Bad: Special effects, Much of the acting and character, Way the plot is underdeveloped
The Basics: When bitten by a radioactive spider, Peter Parker develops into Spider-man and combats a mentally-ill scientist who is blowing up everything. Sigh.


I consider the moment Tim Burton's Batman made its debut in theaters to be the moment that superhero movies crossed over into the mega-blockbuster range. Batman, even more than the Superman movies of the late '70s offered viewers something different and a superhero viewing experience they seemed willing to see repeatedly. Indeed, I once worked at a camp with a person who had watched Batman on video almost every day for a year and had thus gone through two VHS tapes. Admittedly, he was a loser, but the point here is that with Batman, the market exploded for big-budget, mega-grossing super hero movies. The summer blockbuster season has become hinged on them.

With Spider-man, we have an origin story and whatever problems the movie has are not necessarily in the story itself, but rather how it is presented.

Peter Parker, high school student and budding photographer, is bitten by a radioactive spider which mutates him into a young man with some fairly extraordinary abilities. Among them, he finds himself able to scale surfaces (like brick walls) which would normally be impossible for humans, he can move faster and is stronger and he develops what can only be assumed is a glandular disorder that allows him to shoot webs from his wrists. Paralleling his mutation story, industrialist Norman Osborn, head of Oscorp, is infected by a nerve gas that causes him to develop an alternate persona of his own, the Green Goblin. So, as Peter Parker develops Spider-man, he finds himself in conflict with the Green Goblin, who is the father of his best friend.

It is a pretty standard superhero origin story. We need to know who the characters are, how they develop and equally important, why. Peter Parker is heavily influenced by his uncle, Ben Parker, who encourages him toward fighting for good. And, for the most part, that works (it becomes a problem in Spider-man 2) here. And we may even be able to excuse the obviousness of Norman Osborn's transformation; he essentially becomes plagued with a mental illness, so we can understand how a businessman becomes a heartless killer and begins doing unprofitable things (whenever a brilliant scientist and/or businessman betrays their character so completely, we need a real decent explanation).

I'm not one to complain about ambition, I like ambitious films. It's tough to do an ambitious superhero story that does justice to all the necessary plotlines. It's doubly tough to make an origin story that focuses both on the origin of the hero and the origin of the villain. To return to the Batman example, part of what worked so well is that the story mortgaged much of the superhero origin story for the villain origin story; Batman is more about the life and death of the Joker than how Bruce Wayne became Batman. Tim Burton and company included just enough of the Wayne to Batman origin to serve the character needs and to further the Joker plotline. Spider-man, by comparison is either too ambitious - too many plotlines - or not ambitious enough (not long enough to properly develop the various threads). So, Peter Parker is dealing with his transformation, his love for Mary Jane Watson, the conflict that raises with his best friend Harry Osborn, his family problems, and a new job as a newspaper photographer. This is not to say that the threads don't interweave, but they often feel like they are not fully served.

This problem is exacerbated by the Green Goblin origin story. Perhaps only Unbreakable (reviewed here!) has attempted to do a superhero origin story without creating a supervillain, but back in the day, that's how most of the stories began. The first issues of Superman, Superman is rescuing cats from trees for the neighbors, not turning back time by spinning the world backwards. So, like Batman, Spider-man (the movie) might have been better served by being sparse on some fronts and focusing on the origin story it truly wanted to tell.

One of the immediate plotlines I would have cut would have been the Mary Jane Watson storyline. It seems every superhero movie needs a romantic subplot (I've been watching a lot of them lately and all the Marvel Comics movies have it), but here it feels somewhat forced. Peter Parker lives in one of the biggest cities on Earth. There are a LOT of women there. He's fixated on Mary Jane Watson. Fine. Why? That's not explored so much and Watson's character never comes through in a way to encourage his single-minded devotion. Moreover, with her dating his best friend, one might assume given the mores of our time and place, Peter Parker would take several big steps backward. Even if they were to break up, once the best friend has dated someone, she's pretty much off-limits. But, apparently that's not the case for someone who has pledged himself to Good. Maybe vigilantism excuses the violations of the lesser social mores.

Similarly, at the Daily Bugle, where Peter Parker becomes employed, the character of J. Jonah Jameson is just plain annoying. I can see how the character might work in the pages of the comic book, bellowing out orders all the time, but in film it fizzles. Jameson becomes an argument against that old-fashioned management style of sitting in the office yelling at the workers. He just does not work.

And the shame of it is, that the cast is not bad. Outside Kirsten Dunst, who just seems to be here as an accessory (read: eye candy), this is a talented cast. James Franco takes what is essentially a bit role as Best Friend and Son of Villain and makes it his own. Franco is eminently watchable and he rules the few scenes he is in in the movie. It's easy to see how his talents have continued to get him decent roles (watch City By The Sea!).

Willem Dafoe gives a great performance as Norman Osborn. In the process of the transformation, Dafoe does a good job of portraying the torment that comes from the voices in his head. Unfortunately, the moment the Green Goblin begins to dominate, all the acting in the world from Dafoe does not matter (see comments on special effects below). So this becomes an instance of a talented actor trapped in a role that does not make effective use of this abilities.

And then there is Tobey Maguire. He's dull. I'm sorry, I know that's not chic to say. Maguire is playing a shy character who longs for something different and he never convinces me that he's not an actor playing the role when he's Peter Parker. And, to be fair to the actor, part of the problem is in the presentation. The film opens with Parker doing a monologue that sets up for immediate disappointment. Parker basically sets up for excitement and the extraordinary, but the movie takes way too long to get there. That is, he starts the movie by claiming his story is not for the faint of heart. His story can take people with any heart condition; he's a generally normal guy who gets super powers. Norman Osborn's story is not for the faint of heart; he's rushing toward the top of the world when he is stricken with a malaise. The point here is that Maguire is not given much to work with and what he is given, he doesn't sell convincingly.

But even more than Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace, Spider-man relies on special effects and the use of computer generated characters for much of the action. While The Phantom Menace used CGI to the extreme with the character of Jar Jar Binks, an annoying supplemental character, Spider-man's battles use CG imagery extensively and the effect is overall quite poor. The battles are stylized and look, well, computer generated.

And yes, I'll be the one to raise the annoying nitpicky point; the difference between the film Spider-man and the comic book(s) is that the conceits are revealed for their weaknesses on the big screen. Spider-man shoots webs from his wrists. Neat concept that works in comic books. On film, this just becomes ridiculous; Spider-man ultimately shoots out what has to be at least twice Peter Parker's mass in webs throughout the movie (probably that much in the climactic scenes alone). The effect on screen is ultimately silly.

Spider-man is trumpeted as a triumphant movie, but it falls short on enough levels that I cannot recommend it. It tries for too much (or, again, not enough) and ends up feeling unsatisfying.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

4.5/10

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

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


| | |

More Average Than Anything Else, Daybreakers Is A Decent Science Fiction/Horror Distraction.

The Good: Good effects, Decent premise, Moments of performance
The Bad: Pacing issues, Light on character development
The Basics: Fun but underwhelming, Daybreakers entertainingly explores a world where vampires have taken over and are on the verge of eating themselves into extinction!


I think one of the weaknesses of the average reviewer is that the middle is inadequately represented. For sure, we want to have a firm up or down, yes or no, buy or not buy to everything and ultimately here we get that with the “recommend” or “not recommend.” But when we watch movie previews and wonder if we should go see the film, more often than not, readers want to know that the film is either the best or worst film ever and they want to know why. Sadly, for those looking into seeing Daybreakers, I can’t give you that catharsis of the extremes. Ultimately, the movie is good and worth watching for anyone who likes science fiction or horror, but beyond that, it’s a fairly predictable, underwhelming and . . . well, typical Hollywood special effects film that seems more familiar than it does audacious.

That said, Daybreakers is thrilling escapism and it plays well for those who enjoy the current popularity of vampires in mainstream U.S. culture. This film has a more classic interpretation of vampires and as a result, it also capitalizes on the current obsession with contagions (as represented by the prevalence of zombie films in recent years) and treats vampirism as something of a disease. The kicker is, most of the world in Daybreakers is comprised of vampires and they are not friendly, morally stand-up vampires like in Angel. There is nothing sexy or fun about these vampires; they are ruthless, they control the world and they are desperate for human blood.

In 2019, Earth is run by vampires. They seem generally happy on Earth, feeding when they want, owning everything and looking at immortality as a gift that leaves them the chosen ones over the few remaining humans. But scientists at Bromley Marks understand that the dominance of the vampire is dependent upon a plentiful human blood supply, as evidenced by the emergence of subsiders, monstrous creatures that resemble bats and are what unfed vampires turn into when they starve. Looking to prevent the bulk of the population from devolving into crazed animals, Charles Bromley charges his scientists, most notably Edward Dalton, with finding a substitute to human blood that vampires can live on.

Fighting for the survival of humanity is Elvis, who has been cured of his vampirism, and Audrey, who is a human who Edward has feelings for. Elvis represents what Edward truly needs, though, as a cure to vampirism would prevent the population from becoming animals and the two fight as the human population – most of it kept on ice for vampire consumption – dwindles.

Daybreakers is a decent concept for a film, but it feels familiar in some ways and probably because of the prevalence of contagion films in recent years, this seems more a variation on the medical experiment vein than the vampire or zombie flick. To that end, Edward Dalton seems familiar to anyone who has seen I Am Legend and the film seems more obsessed with maintaining the conventions of contemporary film than actually defying them. To wit, the romantic subplot between Edward and Audrey seems forced and the antagonistic aspect of Charles Bromley seems generic.

Charles Bromley, Edward and even Elvis have some of the same goals and rather than becoming a piece that rises above the stereotypes and is about accepting the consequences of eliminating a contagion against humanity, Daybreakers devolves into a “kill the villain” film. In this way, the film adequately illustrates that no matter what appetites may change for humanity, greed will still reign and that controlling the food supply truly does mean controlling the world. Even so, while the film starts with a compelling conflict that could actually have disparate elements coming together in unforeseen ways, the movie instead falls into routines and patterns that seem more familiar and banal than truly groundbreaking.

Similarly, the special effects in Daybreakers are nothing we haven’t seen before. The morphs for the subsiders are familiar, though the effects department does a decent job of keeping the “reality” of the unreal creatures in the film consistent. Make-up effects throughout the film are decent and hold the interest of viewers and fortunately, the vampires are not “Twilight” style cuddly, underwhelming vampires. Daybreakers has fangs, blood and a sense of menace. Human are the snacks and the film is consistently harrowing for the human characters, even if the soundtrack occasionally telegraphs that menace.

The best acting in the film comes from Willem Dafoe, who plays Elvis. Dafoe plays desperate well and in Daybreakers, he gets to mix the vulnerable with the dangerous and he does that masterfully. Outside him, the acting is pretty blasé. Ethan Hawke is very white bread as Edward, though to be fair, it seems to be in the writing of the character more than the actor’s performance. Similarly, Sam Neill plays Bromley with a monolithic quality that seems entirely familiar. I cannot think of a film I’ve seen where Neill has played a villain, but his performance in this did not surprise me at all. Instead, it seemed like a very limited emotional range for the character.

But there is the difficult aspect of Daybreakers; none of the characters truly pop. It is hard to empathize with the characters as they are either “types” or they are so far removed from their humanity that the viewer does not identify with them. Because most of the human population is either transformed or awaiting exsanguination, there is a bleakness that none of the characters overcome. Even so, Daybreakers is entertaining. I was tempted to write “solidly entertaining,” but even there, the movie is not all it could be. The middle drags and when the inevitable action resurges, Daybreakers picks back up, but the pacing is erratic.

But for those looking for entertainment and nothing deeper, Daybreakers will fit the bill. It has decent action-adventure and enough excitement to keep the blood running in your veins. But it does not transcend the genre; it’s not great filmmaking or storytelling by any means.

For other vampire films, please check out my reviews of:
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Blade: Trinity
Let The Right One In

5/10

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

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




| | |