Mediocrity Kills The Charmless I Love You, Beth Cooper.

The Good: Moments of performance, One or two laughs
The Bad: Not funny, Entirely predictable, Clunky acting
The Basics: Disappointing for its lack of chemistry or charisma in any of its characters, I Love You, Beth Cooper is a waste of time, attention, and money.


In the last year, as I have stepped up my reviewing to take on every possible thing I feel I can write about and become more generally useful as a reviewer by getting into every possible movie I am able, I have had a few surprises. There have been pleasant surprises, like how good Star Trek (reviewed here!) turned out to be and occasionally, I come across a teen romantic comedy that actually surprises me with its quality. The last time I recall that happening was with Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist (reviewed here!) which was far better than I went into it thinking it could or would be. Alas, though, such pleasant surprises are few and far between these days. There is perhaps no greater proof of that than I Love You, Beth Cooper.

For Summer Blockbuster Season 2009 came I Love You, Beth Cooper, a particularly lackluster romantic coming-of-age comedy that loses all of its charms after the first ten minutes. The remainder of this one hour, forty minute snoozefest is predictable, obvious and unchallenging with almost no laughs, no real surprises and nothing to recommend it to serious cinephiles looking for even a summer escape movie.

As part of his valedictorian speech, Denis Cooverman declares his love for the most popular girl in school, Beth Cooper, while taking potshots at her college aged boyfriend. Despite her initial embarrassment, Beth finds the charm in the moment and decides not to be punishing to Denis. As her boyfriend, Kevin, vows for blood, Denis and Beth part ways. But that night, Beth arrives at Denis's house and offers to show him the night of his life. He eagerly accepts and Denis accompanies Beth, Cammy, and Treece out on the town.

After that, the movie degenerates into pointless vignettes involving driving fast, showering, and Denis being menaced by Kevin. Yes, this is another one of those movies that if you've seen the trailer you've seen the film. There is nothing shocking, compelling or titillating in the movie that did not make it into the preview trailer which has been before virtually every comedy this season. And unlike other comedies this summer that have had elements worth recommending, I Love You, Beth Cooper has no charm, no flame, no unique properties that make it worth seeing in theaters or even worth checking out when it comes out on DVD.

In addition to having a very mild PG-13, entirely for language and talk about sex as opposed to on-screen sex or nudity, I Love You, Beth Cooper is lacking in anything worth recommending in terms of plot or character development that sets this apart from any other "geek goes for the girl" story. We've seen this type movie before and the only ones that are worth remembering all have some element that make them unique or interesting. I Love You, Beth Cooper instantly shoots its proverbial load, though, by exchanging any meaningful potential between Beth and Denis for the canned Kevin wants Denis dead idea and Beth spending her time toying with the geek.

As a result, the sense of teen melodrama is high in the scenes involving Denis and Kevin and the sense of play between Beth and Denis is remarkably low. The killer here is in the lack of originality or even chemistry. Beth is accompanied by her obvious sidekicks who are more types than actual characters. Beth is the leader, flanked by the dip and the promiscuous friend, surviving entirely on her place in the social order of high school, which is now dissolving around her. Rather than enjoy the last night as the reigning queen of her particular kingdom, she turns toward the future and Denis.

Here the movie flops hard; Beth and Denis have almost nothing in common and what's worse, actress Hayden Panettiere (Cooper) and actor Paul Rust (Denis) have no on-screen chemistry. That's none. Zero. Zip. Nada. Alan Ruck and Cynthia Stevenson have greater on-screen chemistry as Denis's parents in their brief scenes than Panettiere and Rust have in their hours of time together sharing the screen. Of course, Ruck and Stevenson are both adults . . . and they're funny. Rust is tragically unfunny, capturing only the look of the idealized geek for the movie. Rust has no sense of comic timing and his deliveries of awkward responses to Panettiere's Beth fall flat with no zest or spark. The delays after his lines to accommodate for laughter are entirely unnecessary.

As for Panettiere, she is adequate-at-best as Beth. Director Chris Columbus either set out to make a PG-13 film or was compelled to by actors who did not want to push this movie into being the next teen sex romp flick people would allude to for years. As such, much of Panettiere's performance often involves her simply strutting forward in a tight shirt and skirt, which was pretty much what the actress gave viewers from her earliest performances in the first season of Heroes (reviewed here!). The real difference between Panettiere's Heroes role is that she is given the opportunity to play with her sex appeal as opposed to put it on the backburner for plot-convenient elements. This offers her an acting challenge, but here all she does is pretty much make explicit the tease of the current teen generation's wet dream fantasy of Panettiere from her Heroes role. She is not given the chance to actually branch off her acting ability to be funny or more compelling in ways that she has not already done for audiences. And if you've seen the trailers from theaters, you've seen all of Panettiere that you're going to - in terms of skin - in this movie.

At the end of the day, this is a remarkably average film that is sucked into below average territory because it is not funny. Anyone who has seen a teen romantic comedy with an underdog character would instantly catch every conceit here and figure the ending well before it comes. And lacking spark or believable chemistry between the two leads, I Love You, Beth Cooper just becomes another cinematic scribbling in the margin of a loose-leaf binder that gets dumped out of the film locker at the end of the school year.

For other works with Alan Ruck, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Spin City - Season Three
Spin City - Season Two
Spin City - Season One
Star Trek: Generations

3/10

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

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

Stories We Write To Avoid Reviewing Movies We Did Not Enjoy: Rent UGH!

The Good: Moments of vision/concept, Moments of direction
The Bad: Plot serves the songs, Generally disappointing characters, None of the actors shine
The Basics: A disappointing adaptation of a musical I never saw arrives on DVD packed with bonus features that make the primary feature no better.


So, I was cleaning up things left behind by my last ex- and after I sent the box off where it needed to go, I received an angry e-mail. It seems that in my belabored attempt to excise the possessions of my prior love from my house, I forgot Rent. Yes, when I checked, there it was, still unwatched, Rent on DVD waiting for me to return to my ex. So, today, as I played hooky from work (to be fair I was supposed to be on the road to Florida now, but the convention there was postponed), I decided to watch the DVD before I sent it back along to where it belongs.

Considering how little free time I have these days, I am tremendously disappointed in myself now for wasting it this way. There was a joke on The Simpsons, where Homer comments in song a play and says ". . . or Rent or some other piece of crap" and I had the obligatory offense at it (defender of art that I am and having never seen Rent before) and I stubbornly refused to laugh. Now, on this, I'm with Homer.

Rent is a cinematic adaptation of the musical by the same name, following the lives and trials of eight New York City artists and people on the outskirts of the art community there. Essentially, it is a character study that revolves around the relationships within the group building up to and in the aftermath of a protest against a corporation evicting everyone in the neighborhood to put in a high-tech production studio that would allow some artists to do their work. The Bohemian community resists this, along with paying their rent, and conflict ensues between the art and business communities.

These struggles are personified by the characters. There is Mark, the independent filmmaker, Roger, the one-hit wonder, Mimi, the stripper, Angel, the street drummer, and Maureen, the performance artist. On the other side are Joanne, the lawyer, Benjamin, the suit for the landlords, and Tom, who for the life of me (and I JUST finished watching the film) I cannot figure out what he was doing other than acting as a sidekick for Mark and Roger, a love interest for Angel and a guy who comes in with cash at the end.

So, that's the film; set up, singing, characters learn, grow, die, love, fall apart, do drugs, try to get sober, and I just did not like it. There, it's out there. This was pretty terrible, in fact. First, films based on musicals are sketchy with me, but I've seen them done, like with The Phantom Of The Opera (reviewed here!) fairly well. The difference between the cinematic version of any play and the stage play is that the director of the film must use the expanded medium better. The film cannot feel like it could have taken place on a single stage with act breaks. With a cinematic rendition of a stage performance, I want to see camera work that illustrates changes of perspective that could not be gotten through sitting in a seat in a theater. The best adaptations of stage plays do this because the director realizes they are not making a documentary. Instead, they use the film medium and they have the actors play to that, as opposed to relying on their stage sensibilities.

Unfortunately, director Chris Columbus does not do this. Far too often, he has performers singing to camera, acting to camera, looking right at the camera as opposed to one another. This is most notable during Mimi (Rosario Dawson's) strip club scene and Maureen (Idina Menzel's) performance art piece. Indeed, the performance art piece - which was the protest a large chunk of the film was building up to - stuck out like a sore thumb in the film. Columbus failed to make it translate into this medium and it falls flat. Instead of being a protest against authority, Columbus effectively collapses the argument by playing artists as simply sheep to a different shepherd.

Now it behooves me to mention at this point that I am not objecting to the idea of a film about the conflict between art and commerce. I live that struggle every day. As I work to get my second novel published, I've been in a conflict with a major film studio about using a citation I want to include in the book. Their art inspired me, I want to reference that, the business end says "no," I'm nearing the point where I rewrite despite not wanting to. But the point here is that I am sympathetic to the struggle of art and artists.

I'm not sympathetic to these slackers in Rent, though. First, they live in one of the most expensive cities in the world where they refuse to pay for that. I'm so sick of artists who think they have to be in major urban areas and part of a "scene" in order to make legitimate art. And sitting through a two-hour film wherein the protagonists tend to complaining about being poor more than producing art just grates after . . . I don't know, fifteen minutes. Moreover, more of the film isn't actually about artists doing art, it's about artists waiting to make art and resisting authority for . . . the sake of resisting authority. The only genuinely productive members of the group are Mark, who films virtually everything and Mimi, who strips a lot and uses the money to shoot up.

So, it's essentially slackers. Mark doesn't like his parents, so he stays in New York City fighting to film everything he can and sell the footage to make money if he can. Why do Angel, Roger, Mimi, Tom and Joanne stay in the City? Who knows? Arguably, the argument for Angel is that there are broad swaths of the United States where transgendered people are not accepted. Well, as a liberal living in a very conservative area of Upstate New York, and one who has been fired from jobs for having progressive political views, I'll be the first to float the argument that perhaps people would be more accepting of different people if they only had more of them around! Yes, I'm encouraging any transgendered people reading this to move out of the big cities to the suburbs and the rural areas and be out and proud! Artists, transgendered people, anyone who is different, get out of the cities and mingle with the rest of the world! Part of this is completely selfish on my part; I recently took two young people to a concert in nearby Albany, NY (two hours away) and when I needed directions, I found one of my companions looking absolutely slack-jawed because she saw more than three black people for the first time in her life!

How does this relate to Rent? The feeling of being trapped makes no sense on a character level. It's the same way it makes no sense that people packed into New York City insist on being crammed onto the island and yet will pay a premium for space near Central Park to try to feel like their not stuck in the city. I shake my head at people like that and commit acts of profound ad hominem. When I encounter characters like that in cinema or plays or literature, I just grumble and observe how the characters make no genuine sense. There's more than one city, there are more places than just cities and characters who are kvetching about having their lights turned off when they haven't paid when they don't DO anything just annoy me.

The only moment I truly empathized with any character was when Mark starts selling his video footage to a news organization and he is paid a regular wage. Then, he worries he might be selling out, but he DOES something. I respect both the struggle and the willingness to work. As someone who has sold out - I bend pipes at a hellish factory each night to make money to keep my house, much to the sacrifice of my art - I respect the struggle and his character makes sense in that regard.

Much of the rest of the film is just soap operas of characters hooking up, falling apart and waiting to die from HIV. Actually, that leads to the one other thing I liked about Rent. Rent has a very positive view of people living with HIV; in this movie those afflicted are treated humanely and with a strong sense of compassion and realism. I liked that aspect quite a bit and I applaud Columbus and writers Stephen Chbosky and Jonathan Larson for prioritizing that. It makes the film much more watchable.

Unfortunately, the performers do not shine in Rent. I last enjoyed Rosario Dawson in Clerks II (reviewed here!) where she was hilarious and played a very different role than what I had seen her in before. In Rent, she does nothing remotely interesting. Similarly, when I saw the front cover to the DVD, I was psyched to see Tracie Thoms. Thoms played the wonderful sidekick Muhandra McGinty in the short-lived Wonderfalls (reviewed here!). I loved her there and when she presented a solo in the opening credits sequence, I was excited. Unfortunately, she plays Joanne, who does not have the best part in the film. Thoms has a great voice, performs a decent tango, but is much-neglected in the large cast.

The only talent that impressed me was Anthony Rapp, who played Mark. Rapp has the benefit of playing arguably the most interesting character in Rent and therefore has a little advantage. Rapp, however, gets credit with me for the ease of his body language and the way he pays attention to the other actors, as opposed to the camera watching him. He plays most effectively as a character as a result and is very easy to watch.

On DVD, Rent has a full-length commentary track which I couldn't sit through, even for the review. The bonus disc contains a feature-length behind the scenes documentary about the making of the film Rent that is deeply involved with discussing the translation from stage to screen. It will not sell anyone who did not like the film on the value of it. There are deleted scenes and extra songs as well and they have the same effect.

Ultimately, Rent might be a fine play (no comment on that!), but the film is lackluster and uninspired. The characters are unlikable, whiny and make little sense outside the context of being New York City artists or drug users (i.e. some of the characters are motivated by getting their next fix and at least addiction makes some sense). And at the end of the day, it's a shame this didn't make it into the box; it might be the one thing from that relationship I have absolutely no problem giving back.

For other musicals, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Singin’ In The Rain
Chicago
Oliver!

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing by clicking here!

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

Why The Harry Potter Collection Isn't All It Ought To Be.

The Good: Movies get better and better, Decent effects, Good overall story
The Bad: Glaring plot and character problems, Lack of consistent effects (especially retroactively)
The Basics: Despite what legions of fans of the Harry Potter franchise might want, the Harry Potter Ultimate Collection is not the greatest cinematic triumph of all time.


I never intended to get into or watch the Harry Potter movies. Then, like magic, I fell in love and the woman I fell in love with was a big fan of the franchise. She had read all of the Harry Potter books and when we got together, the franchise wasn't quite over, so I ended up going through the movies that were out and then the new movies as they came out. The movie franchise has grossed billions of dollars and has a hugely loyal following, so I'm not exactly expecting to light the world on fire with my considerations of the Harry Potter Collection, but for those with an open mind or coming late to the party - as I did - there are some very helpful notes I can provide on the franchise.

First, it is worth noting that I have considered each of the Harry Potter films on their own. Those reviews, which are the substantive content of The Harry Potter Collection, are at:
Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone
Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets
Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban
Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire
Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix
Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince
Harry Potter And The Deathly Hallows, Part 1
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows, Part 2
Furthermore, it bears repeating that I have not read the books upon which this movie franchise is based and as such, this is a very pure review of the movie franchise. I've heard innumerable times in comments to my film reviews, "well, in the book . . .": This is NOT a review of the book series, it is the film series as it stands up on its own.

Harry Potter is deposited as an infant on the doorstep of his aunt and uncle, the Dursley's, where he is raised as the lesser child. Forced to live under the stairs, he is surprised on his eleventh birthday when he is invited to go study at Hogwart's School Of Witchcraft And Wizardry. Previously unaware of his family's magical talents, he is taken under the wing of Rubeus Hagrig who helps him get school supplies and sends him on his way to the private magical school. En route, he meets the poor, bumbling Ron Weasley and the brilliant, booksmart Hermione Granger. Together, the three are inducted into the same House in Hogwart's and they begin studying magic. Harry draws the attention of the school's headmaster, Albus Dumbledore, who was instrumental in saving Harry's life the night his parents were killed.

Harry begins to study magic with those around him convinced there is something special about him, more than just the scar on his forehead. Soon, it becomes clear to Harry that he is special; he is the only known survivor of an attack by the great evil, Lord Voldemort. Voldemort, it appears, was killed, but still has followers in our world. Throughout the years, clues emerge that the followers of Voldemort, the Death Eaters, are working to bring the dark lord back to Earth and that Harry Potter has a connection to him. As the forces of evil gather, Harry is tutored in magic to meet his destiny: to stop the dark lord from destroying the magical world and enslaving the human (Muggle) world.

The Harry Potter collection has all eight movies at they were originally released and the Blu-Ray version features so many bonus features, it makes the extended editions of The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy look anemic. Each of the movies, save the last two, has been released as three-disc ultimate collector's editions with additional bonus features and collectible materials and one suspects that there will be an Ultimate Collection which bundles the super-expensive, ultra-packed versions of all eight films together. But for most people, the Harry Potter Collection with the movies, deleted scenes, trailers and featurettes will be enough.

What is worth watching in the set? First, the movies do tend to get better and better, both with storytelling elements and the acting. The first film hinges more on the fact that there was a built-in audience than making a great movie, so it stands poorly on its own, even as an establishing work. Similarly, in the first sequel, were it not for the exceptionally important plot event that occurs within the Chamber Of Secrets, it would be hard to advise anyone sit through the movie. But, the Harry Potter Saga is largely a mystery wherein Harry learns more and more about his potential in each film and then has to confront the ultimate evil.

But therein lies the first strike against the cinematic franchise. The fundamental story is one of a boy being raised to take on the great evil of the age. That is a classic hero story and it could be epic. The problem with this particular epic is that how it is accomplished makes no real sense. Harry Potter is taught incrementally what he needs to know in order to fight the Dark Lord and those around him retain secrets as opposed to being as clear, direct and forthright as possible. In other words, the writer of the Harry Potter Saga was much more concerned with selling the next book than telling a story that makes sense.

What do I mean by this? Harry Potter is seen by Dumbledore, Hagrid, Serius Black, Minerva McGonagall and virtually everyone else in Hogwart's (and the adversaries fighting on the side of Lord Voldemort) as the one chance the magical world has to take down and destroy the evil of the age. Rather than groom the boy and have him prepared to confront the Deatheaters and Voldemort, the forces of good are scattered and only intimate to Harry what he needs to know. This would be most analogous to Obi-Wan and Yoda only telling Luke Skywalker about one or two aspects of the Force in the Star Wars Trilogy or only training him to use a lightsaber, without ever informing him of the Dark Side, the nature of the Force or that Darth Vader was someone he would have to confront. Or, from the fantasy realm, this would be like Gandalf discovering the nature of the One Ring, finding it with Bilbo and then having Frodo wander around with the ring without ever telling him where to go or what to do with it. Despite what fans of the Harry Potter franchise might want to believe, the mechanisms of the storytelling are ridiculous in that it is not until the sixth year and in the wake of the resurrection of Voldemort that the existence and nature of the Horcruxes are revealed. It's pretty shoddy storytelling to have a small army of people who claim to be good who refuse to tell their soldiers how they can actually take on the enemy. Even a "hey, if you ever see, hear about or encounter this thing, let us know," would be better than the ignorance with which Dumbledore keeps his followers. And while some might say that Dumbledore didn't want to insight a panic or scare Harry, I respectfully submit that the time to stop evil is before it materializes, has legions of followers and takes over the world.

Moreover, the Harry Potter Saga become muddied by time travel elements and interpersonal elements that do not flow organically in the films. So, while viewers can clearly see the arc by which Hermione and Ron Weasley overcome obstacles to develop an eventual romantic relationship, the development of a relationship between Harry Potter and Ron's sister is much less organic in the films.

The real strike against the ultimate Harry Potter Collection is the fidelity to the original as opposed to creating a unified Saga. The eight films were directed by four different directors and, truth be told, they didn't know exactly what they were doing all along. The technology exists now to fix up the technical issues in the making of the films and it would do a great service to the fans to do that. I'm not talking about rewriting the movies or even replacing Richard Harris, who unfortunately died between the second and third films, with Michael Gambon who played the part for the rest of the franchise. But, Griphook in the first film and the goblins look nothing at all like what they do near the end of the franchise and unlike the changes George Lucas made to the Star Wars Saga, changes like replacing characters who appear late in the movie series by inserting the refined look to the character types in the early films would lend a greater sense of continuity. When I was reviewing this year's Golden Snitch ornament (that's here!), I noticed even practical effects like the Golden Snitch were redesigned. How is this problematic? Well, Harry receives that magical object in the penultimate film and viewers are asked to recognize it as an identical object to the one in the first film when it is not.

Despite the storytelling problems - and it was only as I wrote this consideration of the entire story that it truly hit me how woefully unprepared Harry is for no good reason other than to drag the story out for more movies - and a few niggling character issues, the Harry Potter Saga tells an interesting story. And, despite the gripe, it is a more engaging story than it might have been had Harry simply been tutored at the very beginning with all he needed to know. The characters do get developed, though it takes several films.

What the Harry Potter Saga does exceptionally well is develop the acting talents of three young actors who grow into the iconic roles as their characters grow. Teamed up with established great actors like Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, Gary Oldman, Brendan Gleeson, Maggie Smith and Kenneth Brannagh, actors Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson hone their talents from painfully awkward children into powerhouse adult actors who can take on virtually any role that is given to them.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Harry Potter Collection includes all eight films, their trailers and limited bonus features. Warner Brothers, which produced the Harry Potter Saga, has shown a complete willingness to exploit its audience. With Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince, over half a dozen different exclusive packages were developed to get fans to rebuy the same source material for the exclusive bonus features. By that logic, there will come a time when Warner Brothers sees the point in investing to do refurbished editions of each film wherein the Saga is corrected for effects continuity. Will it be worth the buy? Not if you already have the current Saga. Will it be a better film series? Yes. I say hold out, at least, until all of the Ultimate Editions are bundled together in an exclusive, space-saving package!

For other epic fantasy or science fiction series', be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Star Wars Saga
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
The Indiana Jones Trilogy

6.5/10

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

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

Neglected Perfection: How Bicentennial Man Was Overlooked By Audiences (Who, Hopefully, Are Smart Enough To Pick It Up Now!)

The Good: Character development, Plot development, Thematic richness, Pacing
The Bad: I could stand to have some bonus features for the DVD presentation, especially a commentary track!
The Basics: Bicentennial Man is an engaging film which illustrates well the complicated nature of freedom and humanity as a robot makes the journey from machine to man.


A few months ago, I struck upon a pretty brilliant plan. While I was comparatively debtless, I joined a movie club to stock up on gifts for my wife and that worked out great on one front. I now have a stash of gifts to filter out to her on special occasions and I am very much prepared for them. Unfortunately, I have also discovered that this makes me less attentive to the actual dates of those significant events and the first one I missed was our 25 month anniversary (it's silly, I know, but I celebrate my love for my wife every day, so once a month is not a bad thing!). To make up for it, two nights ago, I went into the box and got out the appropriate gift and presented it to her. That gift was Bicentennial Man and it was a real hit with her. She was thrilled that I had actually listened to her and had picked a gift that was truly one she wanted for her permanent collection. It was such a hit that my plans for the night were instantly disrupted and I was compelled to sit and watch it.

And I am exceptionally glad I did! Those who follow my many reviews might know that I have a profound loathing for the movie A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. I have serious issues with it and Bicentennial Man has a similar premise. Fortunately, Chris Columbus's Bicentennial Man is light years better than A.I.: Artificial Intelligence and I was left baffled at how American audiences had failed to make Bicentennial Man one of the most respected and highest grossing films of all time. So, for those going back and considering such things, I proudly add Bicentennial Man to my list of perfect films.

Bicentennial Man is an epic film and a surprisingly intimate character study, both at the same time. It is cerebral, clever and charming enough to be entertaining without being schmaltzy. It is a powerful work and while there is some simplicity in the plot development, at least for fans of science fiction, it is not unwelcome for its directness. And I appreciated that the movie never insulted my intelligence, which made me respect it more and suspect that most audiences a decade ago simply didn't "get" it. After enduring the flash and sparkle of The Matrix and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (reviewed here!) earlier that year, perhaps audiences were not prepared for anything so cerebral as Bicentennial Man. This makes the film one of the best, most neglected endeavors in cinematic history.

In 2005, the Martin family receives a robot from NorthAm Robotics, which Richard Martin thinks is a cool gift for his family. Richard treats the robot, which "Little Miss" calls Andrew, like a household appliance. The spiteful older daughter in the Martin family, Grace, encourages Andrew to throw himself out the window, an act which damages Andrew and sets him on a journey of self-actualization. While repaired physically, Andrew begins to express desires of his own. Given the task of building clocks by Richard, Amanda ("Little Miss") argues that Andrew should receive compensation for his work and over the decades Andrew achieves great wealth. Throughout her young adulthood, Amanda grows to appreciate Andrew more and more, despite the fact that he is a robot.

Decades later, Andrew purchases his freedom, gets an upgrade that allows him to be more expressive with his facial expressions and goes on a search for other NorthAm robots. Through his search, he discovers that he is unique; that most of the other NorthAm robots were used as simple tools and never evolved beyond their initial programming. Returning to the Martin family, he finds Amanda an old lady and her granddaughter Portia to be antagonistic and bearing a troubling resemblance to Amanda. Having met the descendant of one of the NorthAm designers, Rupert Burns, Andrew begins to design the means to make himself more and more human in his quest to be recognized as a true life form.

Honestly, I'm at a loss as to why this film did not do better in the theater. It is not a big special effects film, but it is deep, complex and thoroughly enjoyable. As I pointed out to my wife, I had seen the much shorter film Priest (reviewed here!) the night before, but the much longer Bicentennial Man felt much shorter! This moves along at a decent clip and there is constantly the feeling that the movie is going somewhere. In fact, the only reason I can think that fans of science fiction didn't leap upon Bicentennial Man was that they had a similar character arc in Data through the seven years of Star Trek: The Next Generation (reviewed here!).

And that is what Bicentennial Man truly is, a character study. Andrew is a viable, interesting life form and the complicated relationship he has with Amanda and then Portia is compelling to watch. His journey of self-discovery is funny and heartwrenching and it is executed on a scale that is appropriate. What makes Bicentennial Man work as well as it does is that the changes in Andrew do not happen instantly; they develop over the course of decades as the little changes - getting paid, getting actual freedom, upgrading his body - compound to have more serious consequences and reactions. This is well-illustrated in Bicentennial Man as Andrew grows through the three primary relationships: his relationships with Richard, Amanda and then Portia/Rupert. Bicentennial Man does not rush the character development and it entertains while it moves at a realistic pace.

One of the clever aspects of Bicentennial Man on the character front is how it also gets rid of the characters when they are no longer necessary. Little Miss's sister, Grace, is bratty and unpleasant and after the early scenes where she resents Andrew and then grows into a pretty skanky annoyance, she and her whole line of the Martin family disappear from the narrative.

Then there is the acting. Bicentennial Man is the Robin Williams film for anyone who does not like Robin Williams. His acting is impeccable and truly great. This is the performance of his career. His sense of comic timing is wonderful in the scenes where he must be funny and Williams actually acts because he is not performing anywhere close to his usual manic stage presence. Instead, Williams succeeds by showing amazing restraint and he embodies a truly different character from any he played before or has played since. There is not a single moment in the film where the viewer feels they are watching Robin Williams instead of Andrew.

Williams has a lot of support from an amazing cast, which includes Sam Neill in the role of Richard, which allows him to subtly develop and loosen his stiff character into one who can foster Andrew's growing ambitions. Oliver Platt enters the narrative late as Rupert and he gives his usual solid supporting performance. Even Hallie Kate Eisenberg, whose only other work I was aware of were the Pepsi commercials (she was the cute little girl in the late-'90's who would sip Pepsi and smirk in a way that was supposed to be adorable, but most of us found overplayed and annoying), is great at the young Little Miss. She nails the humanity and excitement of being a young girl and gives Embeth Davidtz - who plays both the older Amanda and Portia - a solid foundation to work from. Davidtz's performance was so good that after seeing Bicentennial Man, I wanted to see what else she has done.

The only real drawback of Bicentennial Man is that the DVD is exceptionally light on bonus features. The barebones version has a single short featurette and two previews. A film this wonderful deserves more, like a deluxe Criterion Collection treatment.

Some films are commercials flops because they are terrible movies and they deserve to be forgotten. Some movies fail because they are released at the wrong time and simply do not find their audience. Those movies often come back when they are discovered or recovered years later and amply plugged by people who point out that the movie deserves time and attention which it lacked in the initial release. Right now, I am raising my voice to say that Bicentennial Man deserves the audience is did not get before. Pick it up and watch it; you'll want to share the movie with others once you do!

For other films that ask great, existential questions, check out my reviews of:
Inception
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
The Truman Show

10/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject by clicking here!

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



| | |

Before The New One, I Return To The Beginning: Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone.

The Good: Firm sense of "universe," Good DVD extras
The Bad: Erratic acting, Erratic special effects, Simple and obvious story, Light on character development.
The Basics: Underwhelming a new viewer, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone is far more erratic and child-oriented than impressive.


In my lifetime, I had a few plans, at least for my movie-viewing. How I spend my free time is a big deal to me, usually because I end up doing things I later get to use for work (reviewing). One of my many plans was to never waste my time with the Harry Potter Saga. Years ago when the books were huge, I was pretty offended that they were being lauded as great literature for children AND adults when it is my basic theory that the enthusiasm children were developing for reading by Harry Potter was not being mirrored by authors that adults would be challenged by (in other words, a reading revolution in adults where adults are enthused about reading something the average fourth grader could read was not a step forward in my mind). For sure, some of this was personal (as a contemporary author, one always hopes their works would be the one to usher in such a revolution), but most of it was a sense of social concern with the "dumbing down" of America and humanity.

So, in addition to not bothering with the books, I had no special desire to see any of the Harry Potter films. I had The Lord Of The Rings and that was sufficiently complex, spectacular and adult for me. So, when I found myself watching numerous previews for Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince beside a woman who squeezed my hand enthusiastically with every new frame, I knew my plans were about to abruptly change. To prepare me for the new Harry Potter film, my new wife has taken to getting me to watch the prior five cinematic installments. When there is an eleven and a half year gap between partners, one needs to remember that there are entirely different things each partner has grown up on. So, I sat down with her and watched Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone. And the thing is, even going into the experience with minimal bias (I tried to clear my mind for my wife's sake), the result of our viewing was being underwhelmed. Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone is a remarkably mediocre movie.

Despite the attention and eagerness fans of the franchise might have for Harry Potter appearing on the big screen as an obvious blockbuster, Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone is an erratic film which is deeply flawed in some places and simply underwhelming in others. For example, the special effects oscillate between the fantastic - there is a snake in the beginning which is flawless and impressive - and the utterly ridiculous, as they are during the Quidditch match when several people are flying on broomsticks and there are awkward CG-stretches and maneuvers. The amusing thing here is that even my partner admits that storywise and effect wise, the film has these flaws, yet there is a strange reluctance to do anything but laud these films. As per my usual, it is worth noting that this review is strictly for the film version of Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone and any issues with the way it is translated from the novel to the screen shall not be addressed here. I had a remarkably pure viewing of the film, as I knew nothing of Harry Potter (other than the obvious success of the books and films) before viewing the film.

Harry Potter is deposited at his only living relatives, the Dursleys, after being rescued by the ancient Professor Dumbledore. At his eleventh birthday, owls swarm the Dursley house - where Harry is kept in a room under the stairs - depositing invitations for Harry Potter to come to Hogwart's School Of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Against the wishes of his abusive aunt and uncle, Potter leaves with the giant Hagrid, goes shopping for magical supplies and heads off to Hogwart's. On the way, Harry Potter discovers his parents have left him a small fortune and that virtually everyone in the magic world seems to know who he is. He meets Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger on the train to Hogwart's and soon after his arrival, he meets an arrogant young magic student, Draco Malfoy.

At Hogwart's, Harry, Ron and Hermione find themselves in the same House (essentially magical fraternity/sororities) and they discover that Professors bear strong allegiances to their Houses from when they were students. Harry learns that a vault he saw Hagrid recover an object from was later broken into and as he, Ron and Hermione begin to learn to use magic, it seems not everything is on-the-level at Hogwart's. The trio begins to unravel a mystery surrounding forbidden rooms and a mysterious object at Hogwart's, while Harry and Draco face off and Harry becomes involved with the school sport, Quidditch.

If it seems like I spend excessive space on the setup of the Harry Potter world, you have correctly divined one of the serious problems I have with Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone. This film is only peripherally about the "sorcerer's stone," instead, it would much more accurately be entitled "Harry Potter And The First Quidditch Match" as much more time is spent with Harry arriving at Hogwart's, being "salted" into his House, developing his broom-driving skills and equipping himself long before the first mention of the sorcerer's stone or even the appearance of a mystery at Hogwart's. And here, the film is a tough sell to adults and experienced cinephiles. The only reason most will have patience to endure this film is because it is establishing a full sense of the Harry Potter universe which is then built upon in later films (presumably), much like the way viewers are educated to the nature of Hobbits in The Fellowship Of The Ring; it does not advance the story significantly, but it does enrich the full sense of the setting the viewer is cast into.

Because Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone is essentially a children's fantasy movie, it is remarkably unchallenging. Good triumphs over the appearance of evil, or at least people who are abusing the system, the heroes overcome and simple victories - like whose House wins the annual contest for supremacy at Hogwart's - are predictably determined. There is very little complexity to the film or to the concepts behind it. Rather decently, almost everything is explained sufficiently to make sense, like vernacular - "muggles" - and backstory issues like what happened to Harry Potter's parents and how he came to bear the lightning bolt scar on his forehead (and why it still looks fresh years later).

The larger mysteries left by Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone are enough for viewers to want to come back to, most notably a relationship between the young magic user, Harry Potter, and the unstoppable force of evil his presence alone appeared to have stopped once, Lord Voldemort. There are minor mysteries which I am assured come out later on - like why Hagrid is not supposed to be able to use magic, but does anyway - but this film was not engaging enough to make me truly yearn to know the answers. Moreover, some of the elements of Harry Potter seem out of place in the limited time of the film, like the appearance of a ghost, Nearly Headless Nick (played by John Cleese).

John Cleese's appearance brings up an intriguing issue with Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone; the film has remarkable disparities in acting. Alan Rickman, for example, plays Professor Snape, who is characterized as having an affinity for the dark arts and who instantly takes to Draco (making him an apparent enemy of Harry Potter). Rickman is blandly, monolithically "evil" only in that he storms around with a dour expression for much of the film and he challenges Harry Potter and his friends. This is hardly a stretch for Rickman and, like Cleese, seems somewhat hammy as opposed to a genuinely deep or unique performance. This, like the casting of Richard Harris, Maggie Smith and Robbie Coltrane (Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Hagrid, respectively), seems more like the function of great casting as opposed to inspired acting.

And herein lies the problem with the principles, as well. While many might argue that the leads - Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron), and Emma Watson (Hermione) - grow into their roles in subsequent films, in Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone their acting is erratic and childlike. Grint, for example, is awful at many moments where he is forced to bug out his eyes with over-the-top, obvious comic relief attempts that make him seem more like a child actor of the silent movie era than one from a new millennium film. Similarly, Watson's performance often involves simply delivering her dialogue in the most prissy voice possible and there are moments where she performs opposite virtual characters where her eyeline is nowhere near where it is supposed to be.

Ultimately, it falls to Radcliffe to hold much of the movie together and he wanders through the film, subject to multiple special effects - like one that puts him in an invisibility cloak - that work with only mixed results. This is not the finest performance by a child actor ever and as the audience becomes familiar with the magical world of the Harry Potter films, we need an actor who is a bit more stable on the fundamentals than Radcliffe is to sell the reality of the fantastic world he finds himself in. So, this film flops some on that front.

On DVD, the two-disc version is loaded with extras. There are featurettes on how the film was translated from the book, special effects and casting. Fans will enjoy the bonus features, but they do little to solve the problems with the overall source material.

Ironically, my wife likened this to the first season of Friends, where it is not as good as it gets, but it seems like it would be necessary for where the series goes. Then I realized, I didn't recommend the first season of Friends because later seasons adequately repeat everything that is essential to know. As a result, it is pretty easy to say that for those who want to distill the Harry Potter series to the best films, they may effectively pass by this volume and get the gist in future films when some of the initial flaws - both in acting and effects - are worked out. But if the predictability of the plot of this first one is any indication, I hold little hope for the future stories.

For other fantasy films, please check out my reviews of:
Wizards
Igor
The Nightmare Before Christmas

4.5/10

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

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


| | |