War Ends So Much Later For The Railway Man

The Good: Wonderful acting, Engaging story
The Bad: Pacing, Graphicness makes watching it devoid of any enjoyment, Predictable character arc
The Basics: Pairs of performers, plus Nicole Kidman, give great performances in a story of a man who must choose between revenge and forgiveness as he wrestles with the effects of his torture in The Railway Man.


As Summer Blockbuster Season kicks off, Colin Firth is going a far more serious route and sewing up his next round of Best Actor nominations with The Railway Man. The Railway Man might represent Firth’s next chance to be acknowledged as a great actor come award’s season, but the film is equally a triumph for young actor Jeremy Irvine, who plays the younger version of Firth’s character (Eric Lomax) in the film. Both men are deserving of nominations (if not awards) and would doubtlessly get those nominations . . . if anyone watched the film.

The Railway Man is a difficult film to watch, which is a somewhat stupid statement to make, but a necessary disclaimer. The film is based upon a biography by British World War II veteran and prisoner of war Eric Lomax and given that much of the movie is a recollection of torture and wartime prison conditions, the phrase “difficult to watch” is a bit of an understatement. Obviously, Lomax living through the experiences was far more traumatic and difficult than watching a film based upon those events. Still, it is essential to note that this review of The Railway Man is a pure review of the film alone; I know nothing of the historical accounts of Eric Lomax or any other British p.o.w.s. Before watching The Railway Man, the closest account I had for such events came from Bridge On The River Kwai (reviewed here!). It is also important to note that when I comment upon characters within the film, I am only discussing the individuals as they appeared in The Railway Man based on the limits of the script and the demands of modern filmmaking.

Opening in 1980 in Great Britain, at a veteran’s club, the quiet Eric Lomax recounts meeting a woman on a train. Eric met Patti and, because he knows where she will be, he is able to find her again. They develop a relationship, fall in love, and marry. But shortly after their wedding, Eric begins experiencing night terrors, sleepwalking and hallucinations of a Japanese soldier. The soldier is one who tortured him during World War II. Eric, however, is unwilling to talk to Patti about his experiences. Patti turns to Finlay, Eric’s compatriot from his time in the war and he tells her the story of how in 1942 their group was forced to surrender and be captured by the Japanese when the British pulled out of Saigon. Transported to Thailand, the captured British soldiers are interred to build a railway for the Japanese. Eric, being an expert on all things train-related, tells his compatriots that they are being used as slave labor for a train whose production was stopped due to the extreme dangers involved in clearing the way and laying the tracks.

Finlay and Patti become convinced that Eric will never get better until he confronts what happened to him after he was beaten by a Japanese soldier and taken away for days and tortured. Finlay reveals that he has discovered the identity of the soldier who tortured Eric. Learning that Nagase is alive and appears to be living well leads Finlay to ask Patti if she will stay with Eric if Finlay shares the information with Eric and he decides to act upon the information. Patti says that she will stay with Eric, but when Eric learns of Nagase’s existence, he seems unwilling to act. Frustrated and angered, Finlay kills himself and Eric is motivated to hunt down Nagase to exorcise his demons. Eric finds Nagase and interrogates him in a tense showdown between the two men.

The Railway Manis a somewhat dry film that incredibly explores the nature of grief and the consequences of wartime actions. The word “dry” certainly applies; even at the outset of the film, the characters are off-putting and very British. The initial courting scene between Eric and Patti is so stiff and repressed that Patti has to say “I am so happy” in order for the audience to know that she is actually enjoying the love she and Eric are sharing.

And The Railway Man is appropriately tough. After a long, dry spell, the film settles into a lot of necessary but not-at-all-entertaining exposition before the meeting between Lomax and Nagase. In that section of the film, all of the big character moments happen and as cathartic as they are to see, they are also incredibly predictable. Would Hollywood or Australia make a film wherein a prisoner of war is tortured, gets his life (mostly) together and then becomes a torturer himself? Not bloody likely. Instead, as one might predict, The Railway Man is all about Eric Lomax’s journey from being tortured by his memories to coming to terms with his survival and the surviving man who was involved in his torture.

And, Colin Firth is amazing at making that transition. Firth has an incredible emotional range and he makes the subtle moments of realization for his character work. It is clear when Lomax makes his important decisions because of Firth’s glances and slight furrowing of his brow. Jeremy Irvine is wonderful as well, playing the younger version of Eric Lomax exactly as Colin Firth would have were he only younger. Hiroyuki Sanada and Tanroh Ishida play off one another as the older and younger versions of Nagase with equal skill.

The performer who surprised me most was Nicole Kidman, though. Kidman plays Patti and she is – until a very late scene where she simply opens the door – virtually unrecognizable in the role. Kidman plays Patti with a reserved quality and quiet grace that is unlike any of the other roles I have seen her in. She plays the supporting role of Patti with a simplicity and strength that is surprisingly compelling.

Despite the impressive performances, The Railway Man is a very tough sell to recommend to viewers. It is not really entertaining and the catharsis is so choreographed as to be somewhat anticlimactic. The film tells an important story, but it is very difficult to watch. One suspects that Lomax’s memoirs would be much more insightful and a better use of one’s time and attention than watching The Railway Man.

For other works with Stellan Skarsgard, please check out my reviews of:
Thor: The Dark World
The Avengers
Thor
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

6.5/10 (Not Recommended)

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

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Razor Decision On A Movie About A Painting: The Girl With The Pearl Earring

The Good: Looks good, Decent acting, Fundamental Idea
The Bad: Pacing, Character Issues, Utter lack of genuine plot
The Basics: A potentially good idea - a movie about an artist and his art - falls flat when the subject is too brief.


It seems that with Amadeus (reviewed here!) and Shakespeare In Love (reviewed here!), movie writers came up with a pretty decent idea: why not make movies focusing on artists and their art? This is a fundamentally great idea. Amadeus tells well the story of the genius of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Shakespeare In Love does a wonderful job of presenting a fictionalized version of how William Shakespeare developed Romeo and Juliet; it was a fundamentally good idea. The idea about doing the life of a painter, then, is not a fundamentally bad one, as The Girl With A Pearl Earring attempts to demonstrate.

Unfortunately, The Girl With A Pearl Earring fails to succeed where those other films did because, unlike Amadeus, the subject is not a single artist, but rather a single piece of art. And unlike Shakespeare In Love which worked by focusing on a single piece of art, a play is different from a painting. There is a reason that painter on PBS never made a feature length movie. Why? Watching a movie about a painting (or sculpture or other visual art) would be like . . . well, like watching paint dry. The process by which Johannes Vermeer was inspired to paint The Girl With A Pearl Earring is not quite that bad.

Vermeer, an intense artist who paints people standing next to windows (what else are you going to paint?! I know, a lot!), takes notice one day of the new maid working in his house, Griet. Griet is a young peasant daughter of a half-dead artist who keeps her head wrapped and her nose to her duties. She is intelligent and discriminatory in her tastes, which leads a butcher's son, Pieter, to be drawn to her. Griet finds some fascination in Vermeer's workshop and the two form a friendship that draws jealousy from Vermeer's wife, spite from his daughter and envy from his patron. Thus, Van Ruijven commissions a special painting of Griet, which is the famous painting “Girl With A Pearl Earring.”

There, I just saved you an hour and a half of your life; feel free to send me $5.00. The Girl With A Pearl Earring is not as bad as all that, but it is very slow. The movie centers around Griet and it seems like there is a lot to her character and there are some admirable moments with her, like when she stands up to Vermeer's insistence that she help him in his studio by saying straightforward that she has no time in the day outside her duties in the house.

For another one, the casting is truly inspired. Scarlett Johansson was perfectly cast as Griet, a fact made undeniably true by the final frames of the film when they fade from Griet to the actual painting and it is seamless. Johansson was cast through complete inspiration. But beyond that, Johansson reaffirms what those who saw Lost In Translation already knew; this cat can act! Johansson easily makes us believe in Griet and her conditions, the strain of her workload and through subtle body language and eye movements, her attraction to Vermeer and her cunning. Johansson is a great actress and this movie continues what will no doubt be a long and celebrated career.

Colin Firth, as well, gives a great performance as Vermeer. Firth is subtle and moody, creating Vermeer as a self-involved artist with little clue how the world truly works (outside his need for his patron). Cillian Murphy appears as well as Pieter and it's nice to see him in a post-28 Days Later role. He is charming and has good chemistry with Johansson, making a relationship between Pieter and Griet seem very real and plausible.

The problem is, one minute Pieter is very important to the story of Griet and who she is and where she is going and the next, he is completely absent from the film. There is no resolution of the relationship between Pieter and Griet. Indeed, the entire movie is like that; it is one big failure to resolve the character aspects that the film belabors for an hour plus. That is, The Girl With A Pearl Earring takes a lot of time to introduce Griet, Vermeer, Vermeer's wife, Van Ruijven, and Pieter, and then it ends. The movie establishes some characters, then Vermeer paints Griet and the movie ends.

So, there is a sense, upon the conclusion of the movie, that we were all led on. Characters are established and then set into motion, but before we can see what they do, how they react to the changes in their worlds and circumstances, the movie is over. In the end, this makes the movie dismally unsatisfying; when the movie abruptly concludes, we don't care about the painting, we care about the people behind it. We want to know what happened to Griet and Pieter! We want to know if Van Ruijven ever gets put in his place (or a shallow grave).

This is a good-looking movie, with excellent direction by Peter Webber. But, in the end, Webber is forced to work with something that is too slow and unwieldy and ends at the wrong point for any real satisfaction or catharsis. He makes it look good and he has genuine talent at his disposal, but the net result is still a movie that is difficult to recommend.

For other works with Scarlett Johansson, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Avengers
Iron Man 2
He’s Just Not That Into You
The Perfect Score

5/10

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

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

Surviving The Cold War Is A Tough Game For A Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!

The Good: Acting, Characters, Plot, Setting
The Bad: A little slow on some of the pacing.
The Basics: Engaging, if not thrilling, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a complicated journey for one man who uncovers a dramatic lapse of security in Cold War Britain.


I can think of no movie from Oscar Pandering Season that I actually wanted to see more than Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It was out in limited release in time for it to be considered for the Oscars, but by the time it came to a wide release locally, the theater cycle was heavy in spy action films. When my wife and I fell for the hype of Haywire (reviewed here!), I snuck off to see Safe House (reviewed here!) on my own. But, I could not convince her to go see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy with me before it disappeared from theaters. So, despite Gary Oldman not winning the Best Actor Oscar, I wanted to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. This morning, I was finally able to.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a spy movie that is set in the early 1970s, but manages to feel vital and interesting even now. Set in the pre-internet days of Cold War British intelligence, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy includes slews of flashbacks to piece together an intelligence mystery that refuses to insult the intelligence of the viewer. Most impressive, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy takes what could be a plot-heavy mystery and makes it into a determined character study of a man whose life has been devoted to Intelligence. That lonely, often heartbroken, life makes for a surprisingly compelling film that is engaging to watch.

When British Intelligence sends a spy to Budapest, Hungary, to get the name of a highly-placed mole in British Intelligence, he is killed. Jim’s death is the excuse needed by those in power to get rid of Control. When Control is kicked out, his right-hand man, George Smiley, is ousted as well. When Control is killed shortly thereafter, Smiley, employing Peter on the inside, is tasked with finding the mole himself. What follows is Smiley’s search, pieced together with remembrances from his time before Jim’s death.

Smiley’s search gets him embroiled in tales of spies, like Ricki, who romances the wife of a man he is spying upon. Ricki’s story reveals how his attempt to give Britain the name of the mole led to the Soviet’s cleaning house years before. While Smiley’s sources all search for “treasure” (intelligence that is of game-changing quality), he follows the clues to uncover who from that period in the Agency’s history could be the mole. Smiley’s search focuses on the murder of Jim and the irregularities of the case that ousted him and Control and by digging into that incident, he gets closer to the identity of the mole.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a slow, methodically-building film, not a fast-paced spy thriller where truths are revealed amid gunshots and car chases. As such, the movie is appropriately low-tech, with the characters slowly piecing together the truths they seek. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy devotes a lot of time to recreating well the time and place of the film. Setting is exceptionally important. So, for example, an agent taking a transcription of a phonetap gets distracted by the music playing in the background on the tap. Things like bags getting checked in and slow correspondences make Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy feel like it is set in a perfectly real past.

But while a lot of films set in the past fail to thrill me –World War II movies, for example, usually leave me shrugging because no matter what happens in the film, I know how the War ended and the enduring themes of most WWII movies are lessons I have already learned - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy left me consistently intrigued. This is a process story and the hunt is an engaging one. Knowing that the Cold War lasted well beyond the early 1970s, I had no idea exactly where Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was going. In other words, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy could be the story of an operation that extended or shortened the conflict between the Western world and the Soviet Union or it could be about how such an attempt was stymied. It has been a long, long time since a movie left me with enough to surprise me as that.

But because Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a process story, the journey is much more important than the destination. The film succeeds because of the characters and the acting, in addition to the plot and depth of the setting. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is dominated by George Smiley and his detective work. Studying the movements, ambitions and actions of those close to the killing of Jim Prideaux, George evaluates and discounts the evidence to uncover the mole. Smiley becomes an engaging character the moment that it becomes clear that his wife, Ann, is not simply leaving him over him being a spy. Her affection for Bill Haydon is revealed by director Tomas Alfredson first in a simple change in the camera focus several scenes before Smiley discovers it.

Smiley’s professional determination is balanced with his sense of personal loss. But Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy uses that lack of a personal life to allow Smiley to make judgments n one else is able to make. And he is interesting. Unlike most modern movies, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is not overly graphic in much of its most disturbing content. The torture of Jim, for example, is exceptionally brief and shown only long enough to illustrate what the torture was as opposed to making the viewer truly live through the interrogation. Smiley’s interviewing technique is methodical, professional and much more engaging to watch than one might guess.

Much has been written about Gary Oldman’s acting in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. He is as good as everyone has claimed. Perhaps the sterling moment of Oldman’s acting is the subtle way he, as Smiley, swallows when Ricki demands his lover as payment for one last mission, knowing that she has already been killed. Oldman is exceptional in his subtlety and Smiley embodies a professional, determined intelligence agent because of him.

But the real acting surprise is Tom Hardy as Ricki Tarr. Hardy does an exceptional job with the physical acting. When he is interrogated by Smiley, Hardy gives Tarr some great physical moments, moving his hands nervously and in a realistic fashion that enhances the reality of his character’s situation. He steals the scenes he is in, which is a real accomplishment for a film that includes actors like John Hurt, Mark Strong, Toby Jones, Colin Firth and Ciaran Hinds.

Now on DVD, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy includes deleted scenes, an engaging commentary track and featurettes. The deleted scenes do not add anything essential to the film, but they are fun to watch. The commentary track, though, is a pretty thorough documentary by the director and Gary Oldman. Even without the bonus features, it is, quite simply, an impressive and engaging spy thriller that is subtle and rich in the details and anyone who wants to see an impressive collection of British actors performing at the top of their craft owes it to themselves to pick up and watch Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy!

For other works with Tom Hardy, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Inception
Sucker Punch
Star Trek: Nemesis

9/10

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

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

As Much As I Love Blackadder, Blackadder Back And Forth Is A Tough Sell To Non-fans!

The Good: Moments of humor, Some decent acting, Good-enough DVD bonus features.
The Bad: Repetitive humor from the series, Requires a lot of information not in episode, SHORT!
The Basics: A curtain call made for the fans, Blackadder Back And Forth is a Blackadder time travel adventure that puts the series to rest well!


For those who might not follow my reviews regularly, with this review, I have now finished my review of all things Blackadder, but do not despair! Coming this month and until I am done with them will be reviews of the episodes of Monty Python's Flying Circus! Yes, I cater to geek culture! The truth is, the two collections of British comedies are truly great and worthwhile ones and while I ultimately "recommend" Blackadder Back And Forth, my real recommendation is always going to be that people go out and buy The Complete Blackadder (reviewed here!) instead, as the complete collection is a far better overall value.

But on its own, Blackadder Back And Forth reunites the principle players in the Blackadder saga for one last go-around. It is more an homage to the series Blackadder than it is a standalone episode, but at a little over the thirty minute mark, Blackadder Back And Forth caps off the franchise in a way that has the distinction of not being as depressing as the episode "Goodbyeee" (reviewed here!) did. Fans of the franchise are likely to enjoy that as there was such melancholy in the last moments of that other episode. And while several of the performers are showing their age and while many of the jokes are so similar to those from the television series, Blackadder Back And Forth makes for a decent addition to the franchise and sends it out on a high note.

Edmund Blackadder is throwing a party for his friends on the eve of the Millennium changeover, December 31, 1999. As his witless friend friend George goes on about an optimistic future and his religious comrades Melchard and Darling back him up, Edmund finds himself disagreeing. Instead, he takes the much more bleak view that humanity is filled with wars, pestilence and horror that shall not simply be overturned with the changing of the date. The point becomes moot when the party begins to break up because of the cooking of Edmund's septic tank cleaner, Baldrick. To scam his friends - which seems pretty easy in the case of the lushy Elizabeth - Edmund introduces his friends to his newly-built time machine with which he wagers he can retrieve objects from the past in order to win bets with each.

Much to the surprise of Blackadder and Baldrick, the time machine Baldrick has built from one of DaVinci's notebook's plans actually works! Instead of having to scam his friends, Edmund and Baldrick kill off the dinosaurs using Baldrick's trousers before acquiring the authentic items Edmund promised his friends, plus a Shakespeare autograph! Upon returning to the present, though - after discovering themselves lost in time for a period - Blackadder and Baldrick discover their meddling with time has irrevocably changed history and they must attempt to undo some of their temporal infractions!

Because this is a comedy, things are hardly ever as dire as they might seem. So, for example, upon returning to the present, Blackadder discovers no one is impressed that he has William Shakespeare's autograph. Shakespeare, having taken a berating and a beating from Edmund on behalf of four hundred years of students, apparently took the ball-point pen Edmund had him sign the title page to The Tragedy Of MacBeth with and became known instead as the inventor of the ball-point pen! Shakespeare is played brilliantly in a cameo by Collin Firth and Firth is given surprisingly little to do, save be kicked by Atkinson's Blackadder. Firth pulls off the humor well, though, as he takes on a nervous affect and takes the beating.

Fans of the Blackadder franchise will enjoy the return to one of the most popular settings: the court of Queen Elizabeth the first. Edmund finds himself there and bribes her with a Lifesaver mint, which saves his life from the mood swings of the queen. Of course Melchard is there as well, but fans are likely to enjoy the five frames on screen Nursie has in the scene! There is a feeling of returning home with wonderful, beloved characters and it works perfectly in Blackadder Back And Forth.

Not content to simply recycle and revisit the already established Blackadder time periods, Blackadder Back And Forth presents at least two periods unique to this presentation. Viewers are treated to the Roman version of Blackadder - who complains wickedly about Hadran's wall - and to an encounter with Robin Hood and Maid Marion. Hood is an extension of the jokes with Flashheart from the series as he is an oversexed, somewhat crazed man whom Edmund escapes using his cunning. And Robin Hood is played by the same actor who played Flashheart and it is a welcome reprisal.

As well, the battle of Waterloo is featured, which allows viewers to see the past Darlings! In fact, Tim McInnerny's scenes are largely independent of Atkinson's and those who love the franchise might similarly be disappointed by the lack of screentime Hugh Laurie has as George. The actors successfully step back into the shoes of their established characters and in that way, Blackadder Back And Forth works.

But it is Rowan Atkinson and Tony Robinson who rule the Blackadder saga and this is still the case in Blackadder Back And Forth. Atkinson is sarcastic and debonair as Edmund and Robinson is appropriately clueless as Baldrick. Still, too many of their lines are delivered for the audience, as opposed to in character. So, when Robinson delivers his catchphrase about having a cunning plan, he draws it out, almost like he is saying good-bye to the line. Again, this is wonderful for the fans, but it holds up poorly for random viewers.

On DVD, Blackadder Back And Forth has a video diary of the Blackadder saga and a function that explains the historical allusions some might not otherwise get. There is no commentary track and fans might well be left feeling like it is ultimately a draw. Those who have not been into Blackadder will likely find things like the mechanic Tyrannosaurus Rex and the space battle effects utterly campy, but those who love British comedies will appreciate the camp quality.

In other words, Blackadder Back And Forth is best appreciated by the fans as the humor in it tends to be so self-referential as to be stifling to those not already invested in the series. And for those who are, there might be no greater good-bye than this one.

For other works featuring Colin Firth, please check out my reviews of:
The King's Speech
A Christmas Carol
Love Actually
Bridget Jones's Diary
Shakespeare In Love
The English Patient


5.5/10

For other television reviews, please be sure to check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

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

The First DVD I Saw Was Bridget Jones's Diary!

The Good: Funny, Well-acted, Good pace, Good use of music, Deleted scenes are wonderful!
The Bad: Predictable and weaker on character than expected.
The Basics: An entertaining film, despite being classic Romantic in its plot structure, Bridget Jones's Diary is funny and well acted, a great date flick or the cure to a lonely evening.


When I first changed over from VHS to DVD, I was surprised by the quality of the medium. I suspect now that it colored my viewing of Bridget Jones's Diary, but the truth is, I enjoyed the feel of being overwhelmed by the medium, so I am not going back to reevaluate the film.

First off, if anyone of any importance in making these decisions is reading this, let me say that all DVDs that include deleted scenes ought to have a function that allows the deleted scenes to be flawlessly inserted in the film where they would have been. On the DVD, there are deleted scenes from Bridget Jones's Diary and they are hilarious. I swear, I laughed more in the five to ten minutes of deleted scenes than I did in the rest of the movie. Finally someone found a worthwhile place for Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby!"

Bridget Jones's Diary is the story of, predictably enough, Bridget Jones. She is working as a publicist at a publishing house, anxious about various aspects in her life which include smoking, drinking, weight control and the lack of a male in her life. Well, the latter is the first thing to go as she and her boss, Daniel Cleaver, begin a relationship. Interspersed in her relationship with Cleaver are encounters with an apparently bland, stable, disagreeable Mark Darcy.

Okay, the film takes place in England and you have a character named Darcy. Can you tell there's a Jane Austen thing going on here? This film takes the classical English paradigm for a romance story. Knowing that, you know who Bridget ends up with and why.

My beefs with this film are few and far between. Having just checked my facts on the IMDB, I add my beef with the casting department; Collin Firth played Mr. Darcy in a miniseries of Pride And Prejudice. Casting him here as Mr. Darcy is just cruel.

But, Colin Firth is good. I was very pleased with his performance. Actually, Renee Zellweger did well, too. She's not as squinty in her films as she is when she appears on talkshows, so that was a pleasant surprise. And while the scene stealer is supposed to be Hugh Grant, Colin Firth fills that; the scenes he's in, he dominates.

My only real disappointment (other than realizing the Austenian nature of the film the moment a Mr. Darcy made an entrance) was with character. I expected Bridget to be better defined. Sure, the film gives updates as to her weight, blood alcohol level and number of cigarettes, but character is something more. While I think her desire not to be lonely is clear, I think this film will find itself dated in fifty or seventy years. As it is, I didn't find much compulsion in the film for Bridget to want to be with someone. She's a strong enough individual without anyone else. And yet, she seems determined to change that about herself. As society becomes more comfortable with strong women who are self-actualized, I think this film, which on its surface may appear to be strongly feminist with its good female protagonist, Bridget Jones's desperate desire for love as opposed to companionship, real companionship, will make less sense.

As it is, we're not fifty years from now yet, so it's pretty wonderful to watch now.

More than anything else, this is entertaining. I found myself laughing! (Which, if you read my other reviews of late, you'll know it's something I've been waiting on desperately!). I enjoyed the music and thought it was well inserted throughout the film and more than anything, I found myself engaged. How good it that? There's little more one may ask from a film.

For other movies featuring Colin Firth, please check out my reviews of:
The King's Speech
A Christmas Carol
Love Actually
Shakespeare In Love
The English Patient

7/10

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

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Is The King's Speech Truly The Best Film Of 2010? No, But It's Worth Seeing!

The Good: Charming, Great acting, Moments of character, Plot development
The Bad: Not homogeneously great acting, Pacing issues
The Basics: While a certainly worthwhile film to see at least once, The King's Speech is not a perfect film, nor necessarily a worthy Best Picture winner (no matter how many people were betting on it!)


It is a very rare thing that I find myself reviewing a film in theaters that has already won the Best Picture Oscar.  As those who follow my many reviews know, I am proud of having seen every film that won the Best Picture and, like last year when The Hurt Locker (reviewed here!) won, I found myself forced to take in a new movie rather suddenly in order to keep current with the Best Picture winners.  I am not eager to get mired into the whole Best Picture thing while reviewing The King's Speech, except to say that I went into the film biased.  I suspected that it would not be as extraordinary a use of the film medium as Inception (reviewed here!) was and thus I had a little resentment that the film I rooted for all year fell to this at the Oscars.  That said . . .

The King's Speech was almost exactly what I figured it to be going in, save that the most impressive visual moments of the film were all included in the Oscars various clip shows.  This is not a film brimming with movement, spectacle or even much in the way of a weighty sense of consequence for most of the film.  That said, it is worth noting that it is not The Remains Of The Day, either.  In other words, this is not  terribly droll, plodding along British film where the viewer falls asleep eight times and awakens each time to feel like they have missed nothing because the film has not moved.  No, The King's Speech actually tackles the British "stiff upper lip" stereotype and explores the power and poignancy of early psychology in a rapidly changing world.  And, arguably, one of the most refreshing aspects of the film is that the protagonist is not instantly cured and the struggle is worth watching for the most part.

Opening in 1925 with the closing speech at the Empire Exhibition, the Duke Of York, Prince Albert is introduced as a nervous man with a stutter and a long-suffering wife who clearly loves and supports him.  While Albert - Bertie to his wife and family - struggles with his words, Elizabeth tries to find him a tutor or speech therapist who will actually help him.  In 1934 in London, she finds Lionel Logue, who has unconventional methods, but is eager to treat the whole problem with Bertie, not just the physical manifestations of it.  While Lionel and Bertie explore an unconventional relationship where Lionel treats Bertie as an equal instead of a royal, Bertie struggles with living in his father's shadow, especially under the pressure of the 1934 Christmas broadcast.

As the years pass, Albert's sense of anxiety over the speech impediment grows as his older brother, David, continues to carry on with married women and appears unable and unwilling to maintain the traditions of the royal family.  With the death of King George V and the abdication of David, Bertie finds himself in the unlikely role of Britain's monarch.  With the rise of Hitler, the new King George VI must master speeches to rally the English to the defense of Europe.

First off, it is very much worth noting that The King's Speech has pacing issues and the only thing that got it lumped into the "R" rating was a few moments of language wherein Bertie explodes or discovers that when he swears, he does not stammer.  It is remarkably safe for teenagers, despite the language and all but the most prudish parents should feel unthreatened by sharing this with their families.  Of course, it is hard to see the appeal of The King's Speech for most youngsters, so it would be unsurprising if young people did not want to see the film.

The pacing is, in fact, the most serious issue with The King's Speech and the oppressive sense of mood almost undermines the film.  The King's Speech is very realistic in the time it takes to explore Bertie's condition and it is difficult to watch in may points as a result.  This is not a terribly entertaining film, but it does capture the realism of the times and places remarkably well.  This means the film is very gray and drab, the soundtrack is slow and plodding more than anything intended to arouse any excitement or enthusiasm.  But the film does have a sense of going somewhere and the saving grace of the film is that it  does.

So much has been said about Collin Firth's portrayal of Albert and there is little more than can be said.  He is incredible with portraying Albert with his speech impediment and as a result, he is frequently hearwrenching to watch.  He stammers expertly and in the moments where he struggles and clicks, it is impossible not to empathize with him because his portrayal includes acting through the eyes where he expresses a profound sense of shame and strength (alternately) as he struggles.

The supporting cast is mostly wonderful, with Michael Gambon using his brief time to memorably portray King George V, making it obvious how Bertie was so screwed up.  Similarly, Guy Pearce (Edward VIII/David), Timothy Spall (Churchill) and Derek Jacobi all make memorable use of their time on screen.  Helena Bonham Carter, however, slips too frequently to be considered a great actress in The King's Speech.  There are moments, like one where she congratulates Bertie, where her eyes play with the same whimsy that made her portrayal of the Red Queen in Alice In Wonderland so delightfully creepy.  In other words, there were unfortunate moments where I was aware I was watching Helena Bonham Carter and not Elizabeth.

The same cannot be said of Geoffrey Rush, who provides arguably the most underrated performance in The King's Speech.  There is not a hint of any other character Rush has played in his defiant portrayal of Lionel Logue and he has the gravitas to stand up to Collin Firth and be a credible counterpart to his character.

In all, The King's Speech falls closer to what I call "predictable greatness" than actually being an impressive film.  The cast is a stacked deck and the subject is perfect Oscar fodder, but one suspects when the hype is gone, this film will end up on the same shelf as The English Patient where the forgettable greats go after their moment fades.

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project, which is available for enjoyment here!  Check it out!

For other films in theaters, check out my reviews of:
Hall Pass
I Am Number Four
Unknown
Black Swan

7/10

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

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


| | |

Mediocre Dickens: A Christmas Carol Underwhelms

The Good: Classic story with good moral
The Bad: No spice or sense of originality, Short, Obvious
The Basics: With animation that at times tries to mimic live-action and at others is clearly animated, the style of Robert Zemeckis's A Christmas Carol makes for a more erratic holiday film that is a very literal translation of Dickens' work.


I am not known for brevity, yet when I wrote for the other website, they would occasionally run a promotion based on keeping the reviews short and simple (which dumbed down a lot of complex reviews). Fortunately, some things truly are simple and easy to express with a minimal amount of verbiage. One such thing is Disney's A Christmas Carol. After all, given that the story is pretty well-known and it is animated, there wasn't a whole wealth of general information to give about the film. Given that I did not enjoy it, I figured this became an ideal short review for a film!

Starring Jim Carrey in a role that returns him to Christmas films following the blase special effects flick How The Grinch Stole Christmas, A Christmas Carol was presented in a disappointing Disney 3-D presentation last holiday season. Carrey provides the voice for Ebenezer Scrooge (as well as the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet-To-Come) and through much of the movie, it is pretty obviously Jim Carrey as he has the usual energetic and excited delivery, even in the trademark "Humbug" moments. Carrey never gets the voice as crotchety and mean as one might expect for the character, which pretty much undermines the character.

Ebenezer Scrooge is a pennypinching businessowner who hates the holidays and is unloving. He employs Bob Cratchit, whom he is cruel to and does not support well- enough to keep his children healthy (most notably the handicapped Tiny Tim). But one night, Scrooge is visited by his old business partner who warns him he will be visited by three ghosts and deny it as he might, he actually is. Over the course of the night, by witnessing how he has treated people, Scrooge comes to learn the consequences of his actions and the true meaning of Christmas.

Disney's A Christmas Carol is an animated film and that is where most of my beef with the movie comes in. Because the film is mostly known as far as plot and character development - this is a very family-friendly version of Dickens' social commentary - it is largely trading on style. Unfortunately, the style is quite erratic. By this, I mean it does not know which it wants to be, an animated film or an animated film mimicking a live-action film. There are moments when one forgets they are watching an animated movie because the detailing and coloring on Scrooge and the backgrounds are so realistic that they look amazing. Sadly, though, this is not at all consistent. Instead, there are points when the film becomes annoyingly blockish, like when the Ghost of Christmas Past pops up. Suddenly, the lighting and surroundings look more unreal than they did moments before! Outside the obvious moments - like when Scrooge is launched high into the sky - where the unreality of the situation calls for comic presentation, A Christmas Carol seems to devolve at awkward points where the movie just feels sloppy, especially considering how amazing the lighting and detailing is in most points. Pick a lane, Robert Zemeckis!

As well, A Christmas Carol was presented originally in Disney 3-D and it makes poor use of the medium. The three-dimensional effects are only impressive in one or two scenes and given the price of 3-D tickets in most markets, they effect is not so special as to wow most children and adults will likely feel cheated by shelling out more money on the more expensive tickets.

Outside the style, this is very much a typical morality tale and viewers know exactly what they are getting going in. This is a family-friendly film that tells the classic story in a very straightforward way. Unfortunately, it is inconsistent with the flare and the vocal presentations do not always pop with real character. At least it's better than Ghost Of Girlfriends Past!

For other Christmas movies, please check out my reviews of:
Four Christmases
Love Actually
The Muppet Christmas Carol

2.5/10

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

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




| | |

A Torrid Affair In The Desert Is Just The Dry Heat Of The English Patient.

The Good: One or two character/acting moments, Decent plot structure, DVD Bonus features
The Bad: Pacing, Characters are largely unempathetic, Melodramatic acting
The Basics: Style takes precedence over substance with The English Patient, a film populated by unlikable characters whose story slowly unwinds without catharsis or purpose.


Knowing nothing about the movie, last year on Veteran’s Day, I popped in The English Patient as part of my Veteran's Day celebration. Compared to the other films in my cache - which had nothing to do with any wars - I figured it might be an interesting way to spend the federal holiday. Instead of anything remotely intriguing, though, I discovered quickly that The English Patient was a slow, dull love story set in the wake of World War II. More than just feeling bored, I was amused by my wife's reaction to the story. She was subjected to the movie with me and she oscillated between bored and swearing about "dumb blonde bimbos!" when the female protagonist, Katharine, began her repeated affairs on her husband.

I began to write how I was not surprised the movie won so many awards, but more surprising than the sheer number of awards The English Patient won is the fact so many people insist they stayed awake through the entire movie. The only reason I was able to was the fact my partner and I were doing a Mystery Science Theater type viewing of the film. The longer the movie went on, the more our sarcastic quips died down as lethargy overtook us. This is a poorly-paced movie and while The English Patient has its moments, it only has moments. The rest of the almost-three hour film is plodding and pedantic with no moral core and characters who are only peripherally likable.

In the years before World War II, a plane is shot down and the pilot is burned beyond all recognition. In Italy in October 1944, the pilot, covered in burned scar tissue, is being transferred by Allied medics when the convoy they are a part of hits a mine. One of the nurses, Hana, takes the wounded man to an abandoned building and ministers to him. Shortly after their arrival there, a thumbless thief named David arrives and takes up residence with the pair. He implies he knows the bedridden man and blames him for the loss of his thumbs. So, while Hana develops affection for a minesweeper clearing the roads of mines and living in the field outside her ruins, an interrogation of sorts goes on.

Count Lazlao's story is then told as the burned man begins to recall his past. Laszlo was part of the Royal Geographic Society and he was part of expeditions that were charting Northern Africa. As part of that, he meets Katharine, who is the wife of their expedition's financer. While her husband is away, Laszlo and Katharine bond, surviving things like a sandstorm together. By the time they return to civilization around Christmas of 1938, they are having a full-on affair. Slowly, the patient relays the story of how the affair ended and how David came to assume that Laszlo was a traitor to the Allies.

The English Patient is stylistically decent, but utterly boring. Director Anthony Minghella has a good eye for what looks good, including making things clear with minimal dialogue. So, for example, the convoy of explorers ends up in an accident when one man, who is in love with another man, makes an instinctive grab for his lover while still holding a steering wheel. Similarly, the love scenes between Laszlo and Katharine are well-shot and there are moments that are actually passionate.

As well, the film has decent make-up effects for Laszlo. The primary narrator is creepy looking and he is difficult to look at in his disfigured form. Similarly, the costumes are so well-done, they sometimes undermine the mood. The costume designer goes for realism, so things like undergarments are clearly intended to be practical not stylish and alluring. And when Laszlo tears Katharine's dress, it makes perfect sense that he would have to sew it afterward, whatwith there not being clothing stores on every corner. Stylistically, The English Patient looks and sounds good.

But that is about where my appreciation of the film ends. First, I have to side with my partner on the character issues. Katharine is a married woman when she lets Laszlo get closer to her and there is no good justification for their affair; it's not even terribly passionate. But The English Patient seems to be part of a whole series of films that people seem to overlook infidelity on the idea that the relationship involving it is somehow romantic. In The English Patient, the chemistry is just not there and Kristen Scott Thomas and lead Ralph Fiennes have no real sexual chemistry.

Fiennes, in fact, is supposed to be a dashing rogue as Laszlo, but most of his performance is just unsettling and cocky without any genuine charisma. The part does him no great service and when he is in make-up, not expected to trade on his looks, he performs vastly better than in the scenes where he is mobile and Hollywood good looking. Either way, Fiennes is upstaged at every moment by Willem Dafoe who plays the thief, Caravaggio. Dafoe has an amazing presence on screen and he outshines Colin Firth, Fiennes and Juliette Binoche.

Binoche, whose only other work I knew before this was Chocolat is remarkably stiff as Hana. Hana is mostly in the movie to witness Laszlo's story and have a pointless romantic subplot with Kip. When I saw Naveen Andrews in the credits and when he first appears as Kip, I was appropriately thrilled, but Kip has a supporting role and the romance between him and Hana is almost an afterthought. Andrews showed the potential to be as memorable as his character from Lost, but the story does not give him much to work with; his character is part of a distracting series of vignettes away from the main narrative. In fact, the most compelling moments with Kip have nothing to do with either Hana or the main narrative as he is called out to disarm a bomb.

Too much of the film is pointless digressions or unlikable characters behaving poorly. There is, frankly, enough of that in real life that I don't enjoy watching movies with characters who are scoundrels or buffoons.

On DVD, The English Patient comes with a rather thorough collector's edition. The main disc has the film with two different commentary tracks. There is a second disc with information on the author, featurettes on how the novel was made into the film and programs on the making of The English Patient. While usually I try to be thorough, I did not enjoy the source material enough to subject myself to these bonus features, so I would assume that only fans of the movie would enjoy them.

Fans of drama do not have to suffer through every slow-developing film to know what great human emotion is. The English Patient is one those who love deep, well-developed stories can easily pass on as it is slow and utterly pointless.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project which is available by clicking here! Please check it out!]

For other period dramas, please check out my reviews of:
The Piano
The Red Violin
Memoirs Of A Geisha

4.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page!

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



| | |

Actually Better Than The Average Romantic Comedy: Love Actually Is A Great, Enduring Christmas Movie!

The Good: Excellent casting, Charming, Funny, Great theme, Interesting characters, Not entirely predictable
The Bad: What isn't unpredictable, is terribly predictable
The Basics: With its massive ensemble cast, Love Actually illustrates that love is all around by taking multiple storylines and weaving them together beautifully.


I am a bit of a fan of complex movies. If a film is done right, it can have several threads going simultaneously and I'll love it. Magnolia is a perfect example of a film that takes several different storylines and expertly weaves them together. It is with a similar appreciation - but on the love, not despair, end of the spectrum - that I watched and rewatched Love Actually. There is no film I reviewed originally that I have looked forward to going back and re-rating like Love Actually; time has certainly smoothed out the edges on this one and it is a near-perfect film in my pantheon! With Batman Returns, it is an annual Christmas tradition in my home, as far as movies go!

You might have seen previews for Love Actually and resisted it because you are not a Hugh Grant or Winona Ryder fan. For the former, Grant is not in much of the movie and where he is, he is actually interesting, charming, and genuinely funny. For the latter, Ryder is not in the movie at all; the lookalike in the previews is actually Keira Knightley, who is made up to look pretty much identical to Winona Ryder. Go figure.

Regardless, Love Actually is a surprisingly good film, especially for a romantic comedy, which is usually such an overdone, obvious genre. Instead, Love Actually begins with a simple premise; love is all around us. And it then seeks to prove it.

This is achieved through the telling of various tales of love, love lost, or near-love that loosely intersect in England in the weeks before Christmas. The stories include: David, the new Prime Minister, taking a fancy to his intern, Daniel, a widower, counseling his son on how to win the girl of his dreams, Colin going on an insane quest to the United States to find women, Sarah trying desperately to express her love to her coworker, while being plagued by a love for a mentally ill brother, and Harry and Karen's marriage coming to a crossroads when Harry finds himself more and more open to the advances of Mia. There is something for everyone here, including a reclusive writer with a broken heart finding love with the woman who is simply the nearest person to him.

These are cool stories set against a backdrop of an aging musical artist's attempt to get the number one song in the Christmas season even though he knows it is terrible. What makes it work is the writing and the characters. Whenever any one plot seems to be going on too long or going nowhere, the focus of the movie changes entirely. And when it returns to the story one might have though dull, it feels new again. The movie works out quite well in that regard, because as the film progresses, we come to wonder what is happening to other characters that we may not have seen in some time.

In short, though, the characters are interesting and it is quite cool to see how the different characters resolve their problems. David, for example, uses his feelings of love for Natalie to restore national pride to England by standing up to a bullying U.S. President (I cheered when that happened). Jamie - the writer - uses love to overcome love lost by realizing that sometimes, the most simple act of love is simply communicating with the person one loves. Daniel, the widower, experiences a profound sense of love for his son and his aid to his son allows him to overcome his own grief. And the relationship that is growing between Mia and Harry keeps the viewer guessing. Mia is the perfect example of a character that works quite extraordinarily in the movie; her character is presented as perceptive and playful, which creates a character that is quite different from the homewrecker or outright slut one might wish to brand her as.

The characters are challenging as well. There is no firm resolution between Harry and Karen when Karen realizes she is losing Harry and that makes the conflicts and ideas they share much more interesting. The Peter, Juliet, and Mark relationship is in some ways more infuriating because of the implications of the last scene where the three of them are together. And the movie works because it is not all happy. It is, in fact, agonizing to watch Sarah as she and Karl get closer and then love - her love for her brother - tears them apart. Love is complicated and Love Actually does an excellent job of not trivializing that, but actually accepting and exploring it. Love comes with different priorities for different people and Love Actually does an excellent job of illustrating that as well.

The other thing that aids the movie spectacularly is the acting. The actors are perfectly cast to represent a decent cross-section of the population, resulting in a very diverse look and feel to the movie. The actors and actresses, furthermore, are playing at some of their best.

Alan Rickman is wonderful as Harry, playing someone both cranky and open to love in a way very different from his character in, say, Galaxy Quest. Opposite Rickman is Heike Makatsch, who is a refreshing sight without being Hollywood beautiful, and a strong Emma Thompson. Thompson carries an amazing ability to go from strong and funny to crying and vulnerable with remarkable fluidity. Hugh Grant is surprisingly good as the Prime Minister and his boyishness is accented by the dignity portrayed in the body language of Martine McCutcheon, who plays Natalie.

The couple to watch, though, has to be Collin Firth as Jamie and Lucia Moniz as Aurelia. Moniz is amazing and has an incredible ability to transform from her initially homely appearance with poor posture and a demure attitude to a strong, proud woman that is quite beautiful. She is funny and charismatic, no mean feat to pull off when the character is speaking a different language throughout the movie! Firth is great opposite her, taking his usual bland British demeanor and opening up into someone who is actually quite charming as Jamie.

At the end of the day, though, it is a romantic comedy. That means there are few surprises awaiting us in how the film resolves itself, but the truth is, it works in this context. Why? Because love truly is all around us and it is something that may fill us and be quite wonderful, no matter its context.

And writer and director Richard Curtis does a smashing job of taking what is all around us and making it genuinely entertaining.

For other Christmas movies, please check out my reviews of:
Dr. Seuss's How The Grinch Stole Christmas
The Muppet Christmas Carol
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

9.5/10

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

© 2010, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

The Red Violin Was Robbed: For As Much As I Enjoyed Shakespeare In Love . . .

The Good: Interesting story, Good acting, Amusing moments, Costuming
The Bad: Predictable, Some pacing issues
The Basics: Surprisingly good acting and a sufficiently good story make for an overall fine movie, even if Shakespeare In Love is not truly the Best Film of . . . well, any recent year.


Shakespeare In Love is a fine movie. It has all of the essentials: humor, romance, moments of drama, great actors and actresses and Gwyneth Paltrow's breasts. Sigh. Shakespeare In Love was nominated and won for Best Picture of 1998. The truth is, it deserved it more than Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line. But Best Picture of the year? Nah. That honor goes to either The Red Violin or Gods And Monsters. Both films are superior to Shakespeare In Love. What they have that this film lacks is consistent greatness. A rising to something beyond the story being told, a commentary on something deeper in humanity as a whole.

Ironic that, given that Shakespeare is held as the standard for making statements on humanity that Shakespeare In Love fails to do that. It tries to. There's a bet made in the film about plays making commentaries truthful on life and love and Romeo And Juliet is cited as the example. Romeo And Juliet does that, Shakespeare In Love, doesn't. Or if it does, it does it significantly less. Either way, Shakespeare In Love is simply not great. Or if it is, The Red Violin (and probably to a lesser extent Gods And Monsters) is on a tier of greatness markedly above Shakespeare In Love. It's more worth your time.

That said, Shakespeare In Love is a fine film. It's entertaining, which is a far sight more than most films I've watched (and rated) lately. Sitting down to watch it, I was entertained; I did not feel like, "oh, it's taking something out of my day to actually have to pay attention to this." In fact, it was fun. It was enjoyable.

The film focuses on William Shakespeare, suffering from writer's block while commissioned to write "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter." Shakespeare meets Viola and it is love at first sight. He then woos Viola and in the process, they fall in love. This, naturally, cures his writer's block and complicates his life (though not so much as his wife never appears in the film). Viola, for her part, ends up complicating her life as the Queen has given permission to Phillip Henslowe to marry her. Shakespeare then is hunted by Henslowe (who thinks he's Marlowe) personally, while being confronted by debtors. Shakespeare is feeling some heat, Viola is feeling some heat. They bathe in each other.

So, in this fictionalized version, Romeo And Juliet is written and Viola ends up in the play and Shakespeare ends up successful.

The acting is good. Judi Dench was born to play Queen Elizabeth. I was surprised by how much I liked Joseph Fiennes as Shakespeare. I was even surprised that Gwyneth Paltrow (despite the repeated unwrapping of her breasts - because Viola is impersonating a man at times in the film, bare with me -) was competent. She was good as Viola. She was good enough that I was thinking of her as Viola, not Gwyneth.

The costumes were excellent. Quite nice, the costumes definitely enhanced the whole feel of the film and sell the viewers on the reality of the time and place.

The only real drawback outside the obviousness of the film (being that it was predictable) was that it had pacing issues. There were many moments I thought the film was coming to its perfectly reasonable climax and then it kept going. It had too many moments where it was either too fast or too slow.

All in all, Shakespeare In Love is a good film; solid acting (especially in the background performers), well plotted and humorous and well-written enough to keep my interest, but it was not truly the best picture of 1998. I lament that it didn't go up against Titanic; then I would have rooted for it!

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

For other period pieces, please check out my reviews of:
The Untouchables
Orlando
Memoirs Of A Geisha

7.5/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |