The Avengers Apart: Captain America: Civil War Lives Up To The Hype!

The Good: Morality, Character moments, Good special effects
The Bad: Very basic plot, Repetitive fights to replace some substantive philosophy moments.
The Basics: The film adaptation of Marvel's Civil War storyline is crowded, but cool, with Captain America: Civil War.


As Summer Blockbuster Season hits, Marvel Comics is in a surprisingly solid position. While I was not overly impressed by Deadpool (reviewed here!), the third season of Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. actually appears to be building something legitimate and the release of Captain America: Civil War comes only a few weeks before X-Men: Apocalypse. In the unlikely event that Captain America: Civil War underperforms to its stellar-high expectations, the licenser is insured by the virtual guarantee that X-Men: Apocalypse will satisfy Marvel Comics fans and those who just love a big film full of spectacle. Fortunately, Captain America: Civil War manages to clear the bar on its high expectations and deliver a generally solid story, while setting up the next two big Marvel Cinematic Universe spin-offs (films for Black Panther and Spider-Man set within the MCU).

The irony of Captain America: Civil War is two-fold. First, despite the essential American quality of the film, it - like Star Trek Into Darkness before it - was released internationally before being released in the United States. Hollywood, truly, is dead. Second, Captain America remains a favorite of many Marvel Comics fans who would associate more with rednecks than Bernie Sanders and yet Captain America: Civil War makes an argument very firmly on the side of personal liberty. Captain America: Civil War is also one of the few Marvel films based, albeit loosely, on source material I have actually read! Captain America: Civil War adapts many of the concepts, issues, and conflicts from Civil War (reviewed here!) for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And the result is generally good, though there are moments the emotional journey of Steve Rogers is sacrificed to devote time to establishing Peter Parker and T'Challa and fleshing out more of a relationship between the Scarlet Witch and Vision.

Opening with a flashback to how Bucky Barnes was programmed to be the Winter Soldier, the present proves to be equally dangerous as Captain America's Avengers attempt to stop Crossbones from stealing a biological weapon in Lagos, Nigeria. Before he kills himself, Crossbones reveals that Bucky Barnes's programming had slipped and he recalled Steve Rogers. At M.I.T., Tony Stark gives a massive grant to the students, before he confronted by a mother whose son died in Sokovia. Shortly thereafter, Tony Stark and Secretary Of State Ross visit the Avengers training facility, where he proposes the Avengers abide by the United Nation's plan known as the Sokovia Accords. The Sokovia Accords would put the Avengers under UN control. Steve Rogers leaves the meeting when Peggy Carter dies and he heads to London for her funeral. While there, after learning that Agent 33 is Peggy Carter's niece, the United Nation's conference in Vienna where the Sokovia Accords are being ratified, is bombed. Among the dead is King T'Chaka of Wakanda. When the Winter Soldier is identified as the bomber, T'Chaka's son, T'Challa, vows revenge and Captain America has to track down Bucky Barnes before T'Challa does.

After finding and confronting Barnes - who denies that he was the bomber - Captain America and the Falcon attempt to rescue Barnes from Black Panther (T'Challa) and the international manhunt going on the Winter Soldier. War Machine is dispatched to apprehend them and in Berlin, they are captured. In Berlin, Tony Stark visits where he pressures Rogers to sign the Sokovia Accords. Rogers refuses, moments before he and his allies realize that the UN bombing was an elaborate plot to get the international community to find and imprison Barnes. The HYDRA leader, Zemo, activates the Winter Soldier's programming and that allows Barnes to escape. Recovering Barnes, Rogers and Wilson learn that Zemo was after the Siberian facility where Barnes was kept because there is more than one Winter Soldier and Zemo wants them for his own private army. While Captain America and Falcon assemble a team to stop Zemo, Tony Stark is given a 36 hour deadline to bring in Captain America, Barnes and Wilson before the military will get involved. Preparing to take down the rest of the Winter Soldiers, both sides square off on an air field leading to an intense conflict between the heroes.

Right off the bat, Captain America: Civil War starts at an odd place. The post-credits scene of Ant-Man (reviewed here!) had Bucky Barnes in custody. How he made it out of Captain America's custody is a bit of a mystery, until almost the middle of Captain America: Civil War. It seems strange that a scene viewers have already seen comes in the middle of the film, right around the time of a wierd recruitment scene that finally adds Peter Parker to the MCU.

One of the aspects of Captain America: Civil War that works surprisingly well is the burgeoning Vision and Scarlet Witch relationship. At the climax of The Avengers: Age Of Ultron, Vision and Scarlet Witch became part of the same team of Avengers - essentially The Avengers 2.0. The idea that the members of the new team of Avengers, who now live at a facility together, have relationships is a smart and strong concept and it is best-executed by the way Scarlet Witch and Vision interact. Sadly, Captain America: Civil War, illustrates no similar sense of connection between Brody and Wilson, who would be part of the same team.

The introduction of Peter Parker as Spider-Man is handled about as well as one might expect when bringing a character of such magnitude into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Peter Parker gets almost five full minutes in the middle of Captain America: Civil War for a scene with Tony Stark that kills the narrative flow of the film. Chadwick Boseman gets a better, smoother, introduction into the MCU as T'Challa. T'Challa's story in Captain America: Civil War blends much, much better with the overall stories of vengeance that preoccupy the main characters.

Captain America: Civil War alludes heavily to The Avengers: Age Of Ultron (reviewed here!), while neglecting Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. and not alluding to either Jessica Jones (reviewed here!) or the second season of Daredevil (reviewed here!) - both of which paid fealty to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is odd because so much of Captain America: Civil War is spent with wrapping up loose plot threads in the MCU and establishing new launching points for various Phase 3 and Phase 4 Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

The parts of Captain America: Civil War which are focused on Steve Rogers are the highlights of the film. Rogers has an ethical code and he stands by it. Tony Stark's character arc in Captain America: Civil War is a bit complicated. Stark develops from having an ethical position - albeit one that differs from Rogers's vision of how things should be done - to a kneejerk reaction of vengeance to the Winter Soldier. The transition is exceptionally effective and it almost makes Captain America: Civil War more Tony Stark's movie than Captain America's.

Captain America: Civil War features a more opaque villain than prior Captain America films and his motivations fit the film's motif remarkably well. Captain America: Civil War continues the trend in the Marvel Cinematic Universe of leaving everyone alive to use in subsequent endeavors, which is utterly unsurprising to anyone who loves the Marvel Studios films.

The performances in Captain America: Civil War are good, with there being surprisingly few standout moments of acting. The principle characters are all played by actors who have been playing their roles for several films and are familiar with their parts. The newer actors to the film manage to play opposite the established ones well enough to be seamless with the way they integrate with the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

The special effects in Captain America: Civil War are wonderful and the moments of reversal are very effective and suggest that they will replay well. Ultimately, that makes Captain America: Civil War worth watching.

7.5/10

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

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

Ill-Conceived Invasion, The Host Disappoints.

The Good: Moments of character, Special effects, William Hurt!
The Bad: Inconsistent concept, Obvious character journey, Predictable plot, Most of the acting
The Basics: The Host lacks real consistency in its creature design and plot concept, making it a tough sell to serious science fiction fans.


When it comes to the teen supernatural romance genre, Stephanie Meyer (love or hate her works, most famously The Twilight Saga, reviewed here!) was the one who made the genre explode. So, it is unsurprising that film studios would leap all over her subsequent science fiction romance novel, The Host. Meyer sold at the right time, as the box office grosses for Beautiful Creatures (reviewed here!) and now the film adaptation of The Host seem to indicate. The market was flooded, though The Host (in its cinematic rendition, I openly admit I have not read the novel upon which this is based, so this is a very pure review of the film alone) is much more of a science fiction romance than anything supernatural. For the teen-oriented supernatural genre, the hopes at the box office now come down to The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones, being released later this year to see whether or not the trend still has a pulse or is dead.

As for The Host, having sat through the teen-oriented science fiction romance film, I find my problems with it not to be the predictable formula of Stephanie Meyer’s other teen-oriented romance works or the problem that I was easily able to notice much more overt fundamentalist moralizing in the film, but rather that the creature concept design is far too erratically executed. Like Warm Bodies (reviewed here!) earlier this year, one of the fundamental problems with The Host is that it fails to realistically address “what’s special in this case.” Just as in Warm Bodies, the viewer is asked to believe that after half a decade of the zombie apocalypse, no zombie has ever before eaten the brains and absorbed the memories of a loved one and then encountered that loved one, in The Host the stretch viewers are asked to make is that no human prior to a teenage girl who has a boyfriend has had the strength to resist her subjugating alien spirit and/or that none of the other alien spirits have had qualms about taking human hosts.

Moreover, in the opening monologue for The Host the aliens define their conquering nature as a symbiotic relationship wherein they take control of new bodies to experience life as that new type of life form. By that logic, the aliens should exist as a subconscious – observers within their host – as opposed to controllers. After all, the only thing these aliens should be able to do to understand the human condition based upon how they are greeted with resistance is fight each other for freedom. In other words, the stated purpose and execution have some fundamental concepts that make The Host an unbelievable mess.

Years after aliens arrive and assimilate most of the human population of Earth by infusing their non-corporeal selves to human bodies, the last pockets of human resistance are in hiding from the Seekers. Melanie Stryder is one of the humans who resisted for a long time, but has been recently assimilated by a Soul (as the aliens are known) called Wanderer (and who later goes by Wanda). Melanie is resisting Wanderer and when the aliens want to swap Wanderer with a more aggressive Soul to find where the Resistance is hiding, Wanderer uncharacteristically resists.

Melanie guides Wanderer into the desert in hopes that she might find her brother, Jamie, to whom she made a promise to return. At the human enclave, it quickly comes out that Melanie is occupied, but her uncle, Jeb, protects Melanie and the surviving humans begin to learn about the alien invaders. Wanda begins to forge a relationship with the human survivor (the age-appropriate Ian), which irks Melanie, who is still romantically tied to Jared. While the humans are besieged by the Seekers, Melanie/Wanda and Ian must bring a wounded Jamie to a Soul facility for advanced medical care, threatening the last known enclave of human resistance.

What is much more offensive than the bland Melanie loves Jared but Wanda loves Ian romantic plot in The Host is how the film advocates a number of strikingly socially conservative positions without even being terribly clever. So, for example, the moment that potential infidelity is about to occur, the chaste and moral Melanie is able to assert herself to slap Ian. In a population of mind-raped humans, none of their hosts have before been able to assert their control like that?! Really?! But as Melanie struggles to be emotionally loyal to Jared, Wanda and Ian bond in a very button-down and obviously monogamous way, making for a blandly uncomplicated concept.

But then there is the obvious Christian Fundamentalist hypocrisy that comes up as the movie progresses. Wanderer is an ancient Soul who has been to many worlds. As the humans fight for life (right to life, yes?), Wanderer, exhausted, wants to be able to leave Melanie’s body. She wants to exercise her right to die. The resolution to The Host takes a predictably banal and conservative view, which completely neglects the moral implications of what is done to Wanderer’s right to choose her own destiny.

On the acting front, it is William Hurt who does the most to help The Host. Amid characters that are virtually impossible to care about in a world that makes no rational sense, William Hurt’s Jeb is cool. William Hurt is Jeff Daniels cool and badass in The Host as the crusty, but rational Jeb. Hurt is the voice of patient reason, but he totes a gun like the best of them and makes for one of his more distinctive performance.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of his co-stars. Max Irons and Jake Abel play Jared and Ian, respectively, the white-bread love interests who are so bland they are virtually interchangeable. Diane Kruger’s performance as the Seeker is reduced to the archetype of the “blonde bitch” (what, Portia de Rossi was unavailable?!) who is cold and uninteresting as an adversary.

Much of the movie comes down to the carrying power of Saoirse Ronan as Melanie and Wanda. Unfortunately, Ronan does not land it. Much of her performance comes down to her opening her eyes wide so the CG team can put the alien glow to her eyes and voiceover work wherein she argues with herself to try to create the characters of Melanie and Wanda. Why Wanderer would have the same voice as her inside her own head is unclear and somewhat annoying, but regardless, Ronan’s portrayal of the young woman is uninspired and often stiff, making for a less-dynamic feeling character. Ronan has no on-screen chemistry with either of her male co-stars, making the romantic subplot feel very forced.

In the end, that makes The Host an unsatisfying science fiction film. In fact, I kept waiting for the film to finally reach the resolution from Star Trek’s pilot episode. In “The Cage” (reviewed here!), the aliens soon realize that humans are unsuitable for captivity and I kept wishing Stephanie Meyer and Andrew Niccol would get there.

For other alien invasion films, please check out my reviews of:
ID4: Independence Day
Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters
Skyline
War Of The Worlds
The X-Files: Fight The Future
Alien Trespass
Alien Vs. Predator

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.
| | |

A Classic Novel In A Fair Adaptation: Jane Eyre

The Good: Good acting, Decent character work, Direction
The Bad: Problematic novel to bring to the screen
The Basics: Well directed and acted makes this version of Jane Eyre worthy of your attention.


Jane Eyre, the novel by Charlotte Bronte (reviewed here!), is one of the classics of English literature. If you haven't read it yet, you should. Everybody always says that about stuff, but Jane Eyre truly is worth it. The novel is pretty much the standard 19th Century British Romance Literature, so by reading it you have a fair shot of being able to b.s. the answers to any questions about the plot of any Bronte or Jane Austen novel. Sweet for you students!

Jane Eyre follows Jane Eyre, an orphan who is sent to boarding school and survives a pretty lethal virus that kills off some of her classmates. Older and more learned now, Jane graduates from her position at the school to become a governess (read: teacher/babysitter) for a rich man's children. Jane and Rochester, her employer, have good chemistry until they are about to married and Jane (and most everyone else around her) learns that Rochester is already married, to an insane pyromaniac he has stored away in the attic.

I kid you not, that is the story. Those repressed 19th Century women sure knew a good story when they wrote it!

For those who know the novel, this is an excellent and overall satisfying adaptation of Jane Eyre. However, as those who have read the novel know, this is an exceptionally difficult novel to bring to screen and as it is told in three parts, usually one of the three parts is condensed or outright sacrificed for a movie. Here, the schooling of Jane (standard part 1) and the Rochester phase (standard part 2) are left remarkably intact (a tribute to director Franco Zeffirelli) while the St. John Rivers (standard part 3) is just about entirely gutted. Zeffirelli keeps the story interesting and vital by focusing the movie on the part of the novel where the most actually happens and he pulls it off quite well.

Like most of Zeffirelli's films, this production of Jane Eyre looks great and the actors and actresses are all expertly cast. Zeffirelli has an eye for people and talent and his editorial decisions regarding the story make it flow and work out in a way that most novel adaptations fail to.

William Hurt is magnificent as Rochester, despite the poor make-up on his sideburns in his early scenes in the movie. Hurt plays aloof and solid very well, the core of Rochester translated from the book perfectly through his performance. But even outside the context of the novel, Hurt's performance makes Rochester into a real and vital character who the audience quickly becomes invested in.

Similarly, Jane is well portrayed by the talented Anna Paquin (for her younger years) and for the bulk of the film by Charlotte Gainsbourg. I had not seen Gainsbourg (to my knowledge) in anything before this, but I am impressed enough that I want to look up other things she might have been in. Why? Playing a period character like Jane is quite difficult in that most actresses are either too bland (like Naiomi Watts in Dangerous Beauty) or too flamboyant and modern (Julie Benz as Darla on Angel was the most immediate example I could come up with). Gainsbourg is both subtle and interesting, using a wealth of body language to work with her demure tones to create a character who is interesting to watch. She has presence without feeling like she is overbearing the viewer with her presence.

So, what can someone who is not a fan of classics of British literature find to enjoy in this movie? It's a good story. It is a romance with a man, a woman and a woman who sets things on fire. The clever way it is presented will engage a viewer because long before the upstairs woman is revealed, there are odd things that Jane notices going on around the mansion. It is easy to get invested in these characters and that makes it fun to watch.

For other works with William Hurt, please check out my reviews of:
The Incredible Hulk
A History Of Violence
Changing Lanes
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
Dark City

7/10

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

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Re-viewing Changing Lanes, Because I Just Can't Help Myself!

The Good: Decent acting, DVD bonus features
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Repetitive plot
The Basics: Worth watching once, Changing Lanes tells a predictable story about two men who just can't help but attack one another over minor things for a day.


Have you ever watched a movie, then years later looked for your review of it, only to discover you never wrote one? Lately, I have been finding that happening more and more. So when I discovered I had never written a review for the film Changing Lanes, I found myself stopping and asking, "What DID I think of that movie when I saw it oh so long ago?!" This necessitated a second viewing . . .

. . . and I remembered. Changing Lanes was one of those films I didn't know how I felt about it after I was done with it. I recall at the time there being a lot of hype about it and a number of people being quite excited about the film, the characters and the performances, but now - having seen it twice - I am fairly sure it does not live up to the hype. Sometimes, years after a film creates a stir, it is fun to go back and check it out, devoid of packaging, hype, merchandising, etc. I wonder, for example, how Mystic River and My Big Fat Greek Wedding would hold up in the market now . . .

Changing Lanes is a generally tense drama about the power of revenge, the importance of doing the right thing and the struggle to get by in the world when bad things happen to us. It is a morality play and either a cautionary tale demanding one do the right thing from the outset or a simple story of escalating revenge between two men who get into a pissing match of sorts for an entire day.

Doyle Gipson is driving to the custody hearing where he is representing himself in an attempt to keep even partial custody of his children when his ex-wife threatens to move the kids across the country when his car is hit by Gavin Banek. Gavin is a lawyer who is feeling a bit of stress as his law firm has been bilking a charitable trust that Gavin himself got a dying man to establish. Gavin is rushing to court to produce documents to take the teeth out of a lawsuit against his firm when he is distracted and runs Doyle off the road. Feeling pressured, Gavin flees the scene of the accident, delaying Doyle from his hearing and losing the important file in the process.

Doyle recovers the file and misses his court date, losing his children to his ex-wife. Distraught, he teeters on the edge of falling off the wagon when he is contacted by Gavin. Seeing that Gavin is desperate to get the file back, Doyle recovers it. As he battles with himself over whether to simply return the file or to exact a price for it, Gavin seeks out corrupt individuals who know how to work the system to squeeze Doyle into compliance. When Doyle's credit is turned off, causing him to lose his bid on the house he was buying for his children, Doyle and Gavin escalate their attacks upon one another.

Changing Lanes is a real tough movie to figure out, not in terms of plot or morality, but as to whether or not it truly is a decent film. The plot is obvious and problematic, the characters are largely unlikable and their actions are reprehensible throughout most of the movie. But it is very well acted, the film is going somewhere and the DVD extras are surprisingly thick for a drama of this type. It makes it tough to sell the film to a potential audience.

First, then, the plot. Changing Lanes is a pretty classic story of escalation and conflict. Doyle acts, Gavin reacts, Doyle is put on the defensive, Gavin attacks, Doyle prepares to capitulate, Gavin surrenders, Doyle sneaks in another punch, Gavin punches back harder. Plotwise, this is hardly a new movie. Whenever it seems like peace might break out, like Gavin might give up or try doing the right thing, he goes the other way, which forces Doyle to respond in kind as opposed to following his better instincts.

The thing is, this is a very plot-thin movie because the characters truly do move the film, which is part of what makes it so very agonizing to watch. Just when the viewer thinks that things might go in a humane direction, Gavin does something even more atrocious. Doyle, as a result, spends much of the movie reacting to Gavin's bad behavior. This is in no way an excuse for how Gavin acts, but on his own, he does seem much more likely to do the right thing and try to be a decent fellow.

Sadly, this is a very masculine movie and as a result, rationality quickly leaves the picture. And on the character front, there are only two truly wonderful moments that surprise a seasoned movie veteran like myself. The first involves Gavin, who finds himself in a church fairly late in the movie. Gavin, not a Catholic, is given a moment to confess his sins and learn and grow from his mistakes. What makes the moment so truly wonderful and surprising is that he does not receive his catharsis and instead, he leaves the church and does something even more heinous, which completely undermines the predictable plot and the conventions of the story as it is being told. In other words, at one of the last possible moments, the story zigs when good money says it would zag; a movement made by the characters.

The other surprisingly wonderful character element comes from one of the secondary characters. Amanda Peet - one of my favorites on screen - has what basically amounts to a cameo in Changing Lanes as Gavin's wife, Cynthia, daughter of one of the partners at the firm Gavin works at. Cynthia appears all sweet and nice (an easy task for Peet) but pushes Gavin toward the lesser angels of his nature. In Cynthia's monologue, she discusses how she knew exactly who she was marrying when she married Gavin and I recall being horrified the first time I saw Changing Lanes. On the second viewing, though, I took strange comfort in the scene and in Cynthia's character. I suspect I took such comfort because unlike the two male protagonists who are blinded by a stupid rage, Cynthia is smart and she sees the world clearly, for what it is. She comes to the relationship in a position of power and she actually offers a strange clarity in the truth that she does not want Gavin to be soft, weak or uncorrupt. That purity of character actually reads as remarkably true and intelligent and it is refreshing to see in a film filled with characters who are otherwise doing terrible things.

It helps that Peet is a good enough actress to sell the emotional intensity and underlying intelligence of Cynthia. She joins a cast of supporting actors that is quite extraordinary, including Toni Collette, Sydney Pollack and Richard Jenkins. All of the supporting cast, given the chance, shines for their moment on screen, adding the sense that this is a very real world and all of their characters have extensive backstory to them.

Ben Affleck gives a decent performance as the high-powered, very stressed lawyer Gavin. He is moody and his laughs are more nervous than sincere, insinuating a moral core that is seldom actually shown in the movie. Affleck's body language transforms over the course of the movie from a stiff, literally upstanding, guy into a haggard, fellow and he is quite able to pull the transformation off well.

But it is Samuel L. Jackson who makes Changing Lanes worth watching. Jackson comes to the role projecting a quiet desperation into Doyle that he is able to play out amazingly. Jackson emotes very well using just his eyes and there are moments where director Roger Michell capitalizes upon this, simply focusing on Jackson in quiet moments and letting his body language speak. Jackson is able to portray conflict without speaking and he is amazing in this role, which is not quite like anything else he did before or since.

Am I glad I saw Changing Lanes? Yes. Am I glad I saw it twice? No. Changing Lanes is one of those "see it once, take it as it is" type movies. So, I recommend it, but only for one viewing. I'm not suggesting anyone buy it. After all, once in a lifetime for some things is enough.

For other works in which Matt Malloy appears, please visit my reviews of:
The Bounty Hunter
Couples Retreat
Six Feet Under - Season Five
A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
Finding Forrester
State And Main

6/10

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

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

Cycles We Pass On, Cycles We Cannot Escape Are Embodied In A History Of Violence

The Good: Excellent characters and development, Good acting, Engaging story, Good direction
The Bad: Moments of cliche
The Basics: When a decent man is put in a situation that involves violence in self-defense, his life begins to spiral out of control.


The first thing to impress me about A History Of Violence was the relative intelligence of the characters. The police aren't portrayed as idiots, the women aren't portrayed as weak and helpless, and the protagonist seems to realize the severity of his actions. For one reason or another, I have managed to watch a lot of disappointing movies and television lately. Fortunately, A History Of Violence bucked that trend and offered me a solidly entertaining diversion that is still making me think.

While Tom Stall enjoys life and love with his wife and two children, the rest of the world does what it is doing. Killers come and go and at school, Tom's son Jack finds himself talking his way out of a fight with a bully. Unfortunately for Tom, one night at closing at his diner two killers enter and menace his customers. Tom defends the patrons and the waitress there and in the process dispatches the two killers.

Unfortunately for Tom, this sets off a series of events that cause his life and the life of his family members to unravel. A menacing stranger, Fogarty, comes to town and calls Tom by another name, which Tom denies. Even after the police investigate Fogarty and find out his ties to organized crime and Edie (Tom's wife) gets a restraining order, Fogarty menaces Tom and his family. Jack gets into a fight in school, Fogarty makes his play and Tom's life is turned upside down.

What works exceptionally well in A History Of Violence are the characters. Tom Stall does not want to glorify violence and his anger at his son for getting into a fight at school seems very genuine. Tom seems educated, articulate and deliberately pacifistic, which are traits that are effectively shared with his son, Jack.

The transformation that occurs after the initial act of desperate heroism is telling and very real. A History Of Violence plays out the "is he or isn't he" aspect of Tom's nature quite effectively for a significant amount of time and I think it would be a shame to ruin that in this review. However, it is fair to say that A History Of Violence is all about exploring the consequences of aggression and rage. Tom's playful attitude with his wife is wonderfully sundered once the door to violence is opened. When Jack makes an angry crack about how the family deals with problems, Tom's reaction is very natural given line that he has crossed.

This is a family that has not solved problems with violence, so when one member of the family commits an act of violence - even in self-defense and the defense of others - the family suffers. It's refreshing to see a young person (Jack, in this case) freak out when he sees his mother running around with a shotgun. In school, Jack has a wonderful exchange with a girl about how scary it is for Tom to have killed two people.

That level of realism follows throughout the movie. In the diner scene when Tom is called upon to save the patrons, he does not walk away unscathed; one of the two career criminals knifes him. That played out as very real. And when Tom is called another name repeatedly by Fogarty, even though he is a local celebrity, Sheriff Sam starts asking Tom questions. That level of detail and intelligence was remarkably refreshing and real.

And Edie is wonderful in how she knows Tom. She acts independently of him when Tom is threatened and that seems both loving and realistic. She's intelligent and she can see what has happened when the door to violence is opened. Unfortunately, her intelligence lapses at one of the dumbest times in the movie; after her family is menaced, she turns her back on her very young daughter while out in the mall. That did not "read" right at all.

Similarly, there are scenes near the climax of the movie featuring hard core criminals who are ruthless that lack the realism and tone of the rest of the movie. It's a shame, too, because in order to resolve the film, the writers and director sacrifice the realism of the rest of the piece. It goes back to the old question from Star Wars: A New Hope; "How does the Empire maintain control when the stormtroopers can't seem to hit anyone they shoot at?"

Where the movie ends, though, makes sense on a character level and it is a thoroughly appropriate ending (though had it ended a few minutes earlier with a very different character resolution, I would have been equally satisfied). It's a powerful movie with an excellent exploration of the way violence escalates, even when it begins benignly.

Part of what makes the movie work so well is the acting. It's always a pleasure for me to see Stephen McHattie getting work and having him open A History Of Violence is both wonderful and effectively creepy. Ashton Holmes does an excellent job as Jack. He is articulate and funny and he plays disarming remarkably well when his character is bullied.

Maria Bello is equally good as Edie. She plays loving, angry, protective and curious as appropriate wonderfully. She is able to modulate between moods with the flicker of her eyes and a subtle change in her glance. She emotes very well and helps act as a very human foil to Tom. Her last appearance in the movie is riveting.

It is Viggo Mortensen who carries much of the movie with his acting. Mortensen is good at modulating between the mild mannered man he portrays with a sense of permanence and realism and the man who engages his protective instinct. Mortensen plays instinctual very well, making his ability to react very real. He plays Tom with great humanity.

This was the first movie directed by David Cronenberg that I have seen (I saw him act on "Alias") and I have to say I was impressed. I was equally impressed on the DVD to see that the deleted scene, which was a dream sequence, was deleted because he felt it did not fit (I agree). Also, he argued against a U.S. and International DVD release as the international version simply had two shots that had a little more blood and an enhanced sound effect. I respect Cronenberg's directoral choices in this movie.

A History Of Violence, as the title suggests, is not for everyone. Squeamish about blood and sex? This movie is not for you. The sex is not gratuitous and the differences in the ways it happens throughout the movie are very telling. And effective. I remain impressed by A History Of Violence and I recommend it for anyone who wants a decent character exploration on violence and its effect on a family.

For other stories where revenge is an important aspect, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Payback
The Last House On The Left
Unforgiven

8/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the films I have reviewed!

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

Steven Spielberg's Argument Against Having Children . . . Or Robots: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence!

The Good: Essentially good philosophical question, Some acting
The Bad: Overly graphic, Thematically heavy-handed, Characters that are difficult to connect with, Loses focus
The Basics: The MPAA drops the ball on not rating this nightmarish fairy tale “R.” Otherwise, there is little of note here.


It did not take watching A.I. or Artificial Intelligence long to realize that Steven Spielberg was the wrong director for this movie. At best, no other director could be accused of trying to capitalize on the same type feelings as E.T, at worst, no other director would be a target for trying so desperately to make a hit film. Artificial Intelligence fails to be as simply endearing as E.T. was upon its release and too pointlessly graphic and needlessly complicated to be the real hit that he wanted.

When Henry Swinton believes he has found the solution to his wife's heartbreak over their son's apparent coma, he purchases a robot (mecha) that has the ability to love her without question. David, the mecha, takes a while to endear himself to Monica and eventually, she begins to return his affection. When her biological son reanimates, there is natural conflict between the two children and Monica decides to abandon David. David, unalterably programmed to love Monica, begins a search for the Blue Fairy from Pinocchio in an attempt to become human. In the process, he flees the most dangerous element of humanity, the Flesh Fair, and journeys to the submerged Manhattan to try to become human.

First of all, if you are not a fan of Pinocchio-type stories, this will be a huge let down for you. Essentially, it is a souped up fairy tale with all the simplicity and none of the charm. Haley Joel Osment does a fine job portraying David with simplistic, childlike wonder, but there is no magic in his performance. There's no spark of joy in him, which makes watching Osment's David difficult.

If you read my reviews, you will no I am not a prude for most of the things Conservatives decry are wrong with movies. I was disappointed at how sexually graphic Henry And June (reviewed here!) wasn't and the ultra-violent "Empok Nor" rates as one of the best Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes in my book. That said, the MPAA completely dropped the ball when it came to rating this movie. Whatever dolts at the MPAA slapped a PG-13 on this movie instead of an "R" deserved to be fired.

Why? A significant portion of Artificial Intelligence happens at a Flesh Fair. The Flesh Fair is basically a bunch of hicks getting together and tearing apart robots. In the scene, we see a robot shot from a cannon, through a ring of fire and into a jet engine where it is destroyed, another is drawn and quartered before our eyes and yet another is melted completely with acid. The purpose of the scene is to illustrate what monsters humans have become in relation to their servants. This horrific scene immediately follows a scene wherein a dump truck of already destroyed robots attempt to reconstruct themselves and includes such things as one robot tearing jaws off other dead droids to find one that fits. The problems of these scenes are twofold. 1. They do what they do exceptionally well, to the point of being overbearing, oppressive and gross. In the robot dump scene, we see quite comprehensively how poorly the robots have been treated and any viewer with a brain is going to feel the sense of injustice and "get" that this situation is absolutely wrong. The scene that follows with the chase and torture of robots is therefore unnecessary. Add to that, the scene is supposed to illustrate how inhumanely the robots are being treated by showing their torture and we are to understand how wrong that is. The MPAA completely dropped the ball on this one in that it uses the excuse that the beings being tortured are simply inanimate objects to justify showing things it would never allow to be illustrated with human beings. Thus, the MPAA is desensitized, becoming in itself a flesh fair. It is unethical and desensitizing to allow such graphic torture to be shown, especially to youngsters and the idiocy of the MPAA's decision to rate this PG-13 is that the robots are, of course, humans in actuality! The second problem is both of these intense, graphic scenes of dismemberment, torture and destruction are too long. We get the thesis of the scenes. They feel like the Ripley Clone Room scene in Alien Resurrection (reviewed here!) - we got it, get on with it.

Following the disgusting and inappropriately rated Flesh Fair scene, the movie falls completely into chaos. The comic relief provided by Jude Law's character Gigolo Joe wears thin immediately such that the viewer is not disappointed by his rapid exit from the movie soon after. Then the movie descends into a weird fairy tale involving massive passages of time and alien beings.

The problem, ultimately, with Artificial Intelligence is that it does not seem to know what it wants to be. Too often, it is an oversimplified fairy tale. Other moments, however, it rises to a wrenchingly graphic and adult portrayal of ostracization and loneliness. In the end, none of the characters come alive. David is simplistic and monotonous, Monica is pretty much the worst mother ever, Joe is a one trick joke, and Professor Allen Hobby, who has great potential as a philosopher somehow loses his way in the last scenes we see of him. His philosophical quest motivates the movie, yet his actions at the end are inexplicable; until he knew the outcome of the David experiment, why would he start other such experiments?

In contrast to the characters, the acting is halfway decent. Almost redeeming the movie are the performances of William Hurt, who plays Hobby as intelligent and compassionate, and Haley Joel Osment, who earns his fee easily with his weird, robotic performance of David. The contrast between the warmly emotional Hurt and the quirky, quasi-dispassionate Osment works quite well.

Unfortunately, it is not enough to save this movie. It lacks serious direction other than trying to prove that the responsibility one would have to an artificial life form is the same as one would have to a biological entity, but that is proven rather quickly. The lack of purpose through much of the movie is complicated by a situation devoid of empathetic characters and ruined by an unnecessarily gruesome set of scenes that defy good taste. If you want a better time making an ethical argument over robots, I strongly recommend "Measure Of A Man" from Star Trek The Next Generation's second season. They say that if a movie resonates emotionally with you, it's good regardless; I say if it resonates only in that it makes you nauseous and others when you describe it, it's garbage. There's no antacid that counteracts the Flesh Fair and only sadness that 28 Days Later's Brendan Gleeson was a part of it.

For other big science fiction films, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Bicentennial Man
Inception
Minority Report

3.5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Even Edward Norton Cannot Save The Incredible Hulk As Summer Lackluster Theater Continues!

The Good: Moments of performance with Norton and Tyler
The Bad: Characters fail to grow in any significant way, Much of the acting, Plot, Special effects.
The Basics: While an improvement on the Ang Lee Hulk, The Incredible Hulk still fails as it does not develop the established characters and relies heavily on other conceits of the genre.


Every now and then, I feel like I have woken up in a parallel universe. As I continue to participate in summer blockbuster season by attending viewings of the logical top film of the week (by the grosses), I've been astonished to find so many well-respected reviewers raving about The Incredible Hulk, a film I've been trying to review for the better part of an evening. Why? My reviews keep coming up short and I run out of synonyms for "terrible." Even for the air conditioning the theater offers with the ticket price, it's not worth suffering through The Incredible Hulk, a film which is essentially shown in its entirety in the theatrical trailer.

Following a botched abduction attempt by commandos and General Thunderbolt Ross, the reclusive scientist Dr. Bruce Banner's gamma ray-altered DNA falls into the hands of the military. Escaping Brazil for New York City, Dr. Banner - who has been working to cure himself of becoming a giant green monster whenever he becomes angry - finds himself pursued by General Ross. His search for a cure and his reuniting with the love of his life, Betty Ross, is cut short when the military manages to use the DNA they extracted, resulting in the Abomination, a massive gray creature that is set loose in New York City. The Hulk must therefore be allowed to emerge, so that New York City - and civilization - might be saved.

Hmmmm . . . haven't we seen essentially the same thing before? Banner struggles with his condition, a similar creature arises and only the Hulk - the alter-ego angry side of Banner - can stop it . . . It seems like that was what Hulk (reviewed here!) was all about and that movie was just plain terrible. The Incredible Hulk is, admittedly, a little better. But not by much. At all.

First, many have praised Edward Norton's presence in the film, as well as helping in penning the script. I like Edward Norton. In fact, I like his work quite a bit. Indeed, it was Edward Norton who managed to get me to go see The Incredible Hulk, when I promised myself after Hulk I would do no such thing. The problem is, Norton is the familiar Edward Norton we've already seen. And when he's not, he's not. I mean that quite literally; the only moments that Edward Norton does anything remotely unlike something we have seen before from him, he's a CGI character who is rampaging around.

As a result, much of The Incredible Hulk has Norton moping around in a ridiculously familiar way. Anyone who has seen the magnificent The 25th Hour has already seen all that Norton brings to bear in his performance in this film. He is moody and cerebral, pouting his way through his studies and search for a cure while pining for Betty. The thing is, we've seen Norton heavy and moody before and when he is so preoccupied, it feels familiar and droll. Moreover, in the moments where Norton as Banner is forced to express anger, it falls flat. Norton does fear and pain great, but when trying to express rage . . . well, there are moments the special effects work by taking over for the actor. More often than not, watching Edward Norton in The Incredible Hulk seemed like watching Luke Wilson. Indeed, at some of his most cerebral moments, Norton mimics Wilson from his performance in The Royal Tennenbaums.

But more importantly, the problem with Hulk was not (so much) Eric Bana or Jennifer Connelly, but rather the terrible and predictable script. Here, the script is almost just as bad as this follows a rather predictable sequel trend of re-establishing the super hero, introducing the villain, thwarting the villain. Like most such sequels, there is more than one villain and the way The Incredible Hulk fails to engage is that in the sequences where Banner is eluding Thunderbolt Ross, he doesn't grow. Sure, Banner is plagued by this demon inside him that comes out all angry and slobbery. But when he's not focused on a cure - which is pretty boring to watch -, he's restraining himself with his girlfriend (sorry, restraint is pretty boring to watch, too) or he's restraining himself from fighting the military commandos which, also, not the most interesting sequences. In other words, in the establishing moments of the flick wherein Banner is shown doing relaxing things and carefully monitoring his vital signs, he is established as a character who is fighting for control and the savvy viewer gets that. After recently having everything spoon fed in the latest Indiana Jones outing, I was ready to not have my intelligence insulted. Alas, The Incredible Hulk does not fit that bill.

Moreover, the rest of the characters are flat and uninspired, making Banner and Hulk's actions seem less heroic. Betty is the the archetypal lady in waiting, Thunderbolt is the generic military leader and Blonsky - the commando who becomes the Abomination - seems more of a parody of a military commando than its archetype. He spouts some of the most bland, generic lines of the film and while it is clear what motivates Banner into becoming the Hulk, what spurs Blonsky into the Abomination and traps him there is less sensible.

And everyone else in the movie is window dressing. In some ways, it doesn't even matter as The Incredible Hulk rapidly degenerates into a series of special effects battle sequences that are more cartoonish than a serious cinephile will be comfortable with. To be sure, the computer animation that defines the creature the Hulk is more detailed than in the prior cinematic outing, but it is no better in terms of its realism. Many of the sequences that are supposed to be exciting and big falls dramatically short as the two computer generated monsters ridiculously interact.

But following so closely on the heels of Iron Man, the plot of The Incredible Hulk seems structurally dull and at least the earlier Marvel film had some intrigue and character issues. But, like Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk quickly degenerates into a film wherein the hero is established and then a bigger, grayer version of the same comes along to stomp on everything. Yes, we've seen it and while the super hero genre film niche might be tough to manage - especially when creating a sequel - the least the Marvel film division could do is try to put the most similar films out on different years!

The Incredible Hulk does not advance the character of Bruce Banner and his strained relationship with Betty is glossed over so much that it is hard to empathize and care. Ultimately, The Incredible Hulk continues what was begun years ago with equal or better actors being utilized in exactly the way one might expect them to be (without challenging the viewer's expectations in this regard) in a plot that is so hackneyed and obvious that only those who have to sneak into this PG-13 film would find it original. And for the adults in the audience, it's hard even to find it entertaining.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

3.5/10

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

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Dark City Alex Proyas' Existential Nightmare And Perfect Film!

The Good: Characters, acting, special effects
The Bad: Fails to satisfactorily answer the question "What's the point?"
The Basics: A must see! The bigger the screen the better! Only to be viewed in absolute darkness!

I used to think it was rare when Roger Ebert and I agree on a film (though that's changed quite a bit since I first wrote this review). I've never met the man, but reading his opinions or seeing his show, I've seldom found myself agreeing with his views on films. Dark City is an exception and I urge anyone considering seeing this film to read his review of Dark City.

Dark City is an existentialist's nightmare. It's a cinematographic masterpiece that does not rest simply on the strength of an amazing "look;" it is populated with numerous facets that defy film - especially genre - boundaries and limitations. While not strictly a special effects movie, this film uses pretty incredible special effects that still look great today to vividly create a distinct and nightmarish world. Dark City is the thinking person's The Matrix and it is ironic that so many people found Dark City AFTER The Matrix when Dark City was released the year before.

Dark City is the search for what makes a person human. Indeed, the experiment being conducted in Dark City is: if an individual is given memories of behaving a certain way, will they continue in that vein? The film explores what happens when John Murdock, suffering from amnesia, pieces together that he is a murderer through loads of circumstantial evidence. Not even possessing the memories of killing, he becomes frightened that he may not even know himself. In the process, he attempts to enlist the aid of his wife - whom he is unaware that he is estranged from - and a mad scientist caricature named Dr. Schreber. As he searches for his identity, Murdock is hunted by an empathetic and open-minded police detective and The Strangers.

The Strangers are essentially the scientists conducting the experiment and they are fascinating villains made more menacing by the fact that at least one of them is a child in form. Using the bodies of men who have died, the Strangers rule the city and warp reality around their own concepts of what makes humans tick in a quest to understand how memory and action interrelate. The veil for the quest to understand the human soul is brilliantly executed as writer-director Alex Proyas (who co-wrote this with Lem Dobbs and David S. Goyer) creates an association between memory and action.

John Murdock is an empathetic character. Lacking any real memories, he finds himself traumatized to learn that he might be a killer. Murdock's chase is wonderfully paralleled by the unraveling of a case for Inspector Frank Bumstead. Bumstead intellectually unfolds the details that Murdock instinctively unravels and the parallel stories work brilliantly together to create a vivid and memorable exploration of the human condition.

Part of what makes the characters so genius is the acting behind them. Richard O'Brien and Ian Richardson are menacing as the villainous Strangers Mr. Hand and Mr. Book. Both lend a creepy stiff posture to the enemy that makes us believe in their power without questioning. Similarly, Jennifer Connelly's very human and feminine performance serves as a perfect foil to the frantic performance given by the lead, Rufus Sewell. Connelly's Emma is quiet and trusting and expresses love so perfectly with her eyes and body language. Connelly has the incredible ability to emote and she uses it perfectly in this film.

William Hurt does an excellent job as the fastidious and efficient, though emotionally reserved Inspector Bumstead. Hurt's poker face is on the entire movie and he creates a memorable gumshoe that we wish we could see more of. Similarly, Kiefer Sutherland gives one of the best performances of his career. Wounded by The Strangers, Dr. Schreber walks with a severe limp and Sutherland sells us on his damage. Sutherland creates a series of defects, including a speech impediment that makes Dr. Schreber more ambiguous than villainous. His range is definitely pushed with this performance.

But much of the movie rests on the performance of Rufus Sewell. Sewell is brilliant as John Murdock and from the moment he awakens naked in the bathtub, we are hooked on his performance. His eyes connote a power and director Alex Proyas uses that intensity to sell the audience on the abilities Murdock develops. All in all this is the performance that should have made Sewell huge, he is that impressive in the role.

The weakness of Dark City is in its definition. In the opening scene we are informed that The Strangers and their ability to Tune has brought them to a point where they are seeking survival for their collective memories. When, in the film, they seem to discover that it is unclear what they have learned that they didn't know before. In fact, more than unlocking the key to what it is to be human (which begs the unanswered question "What about being human, being individual, makes them think that humanity is the key to saving their race?"), it seems they succeed in making a human more like them.

On DVD, there are two commentary tracks, as well as featurettes on the making of the film. There is also a “Director’s Cut” (review forthcoming) which was not nearly as good. The Blu-Ray disc has BOTH versions of the film and represents the greatest value for viewers.

This is a fantastic drama and a perfect film that overcomes its lingering questions through the strength of acting, character, special effects and available plot. That is to say, other than the way the film is set up, everything that we see that happens makes sense!

For a similar mind-blowing film, please check out my review of Inception!

10/10

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

© 2010, 2007, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |