Another Average Great Film: Amelia Underwhelms.

The Good: Great cinematography, Interesting characters, Good plot
The Bad: Acting is very average, Pacing issues
The Basics: A good, but not great film, Amelia is an informative biography of the romance between Amelia Earhart and George Putnam that is predictably great and unchallenging.


There are several films I have encountered as a reviewer where they fall into what I call "Mediocre Greatness." They are usually films that have high drama and focus on character and have an amazing ensemble cast. Those same films seldom stretch the talents of those involved and they merely live up to the expected greatness of the performers. Mystic River is the first of many of these type movies that comes to my mind. Today, I add Amelia to that list. It is not a bad movie: it has all the necessary factors to be popular and Oscar fodder from recognizable actors acting well to a good story to a sweeping soundtrack with great visuals. But I got pretty much all that from the trailers. Watching the movie left me with very little that was new or powerful and having seen so many movies, this conformed more to expectations than it defied or exceeded them.

Amelia is a biopic, a biography of Amelia Earhart and I went to a screening with my mother, who is a big fan of Earhart and was quite excited about the movie. I'm actually surprised she wanted to go because she was at least as excited about Julie And Julia which I took her to earlier that year and she was quite underwhelmed. In this case, she came out loving it, telling me that this was a movie she would love on DVD when it arrives there (which she has since gotten) and my immediate question was "Have you seen Hilary Swank in anything before?" Her answer was "no" and I suspect the reason she was so pleasantly surprised by the movie was that Swank truly is amazing in the role of Amelia Earhart.

As a young woman, Amelia Earhart experiences the thrill of flying while at the Canadian National Expo and she devotes her life thereafter to learning to fly. Flying small planes comes surprisingly naturally to Amelia and after Lindbergh crosses the Atlantic, the search is on for the first woman to make the same trek. Encouraged by the operation's publicist, George Putnam, Amelia takes on the challenge and becomes the first woman to make the flight, even though she is not alone in the plane when it happens. This, however, makes her an international celebrity and she and Putnam quickly get closer. After Putnam leaves his wife and tries doggedly to get her, Amelia Earhart becomes his wife.

Shortly thereafter, Earhart makes her first solo transatlantic flight and her celebrity increases. Putnam, though, tries to be supportive of both her and her image goals and helps her to look for the next big thing. As she starts to break records for the types of flights she takes - and attracts the attentions of other men, most notably Gene Vidal - she sets her sights on the one thing no one else has ever accomplished; a flight around the world from an equatorial route. Despite the dangers, she and her co-pilot Fred Noonan set out to make the flight . . .

I thought I knew pretty much the whole story of Amelia before seeing the film. After all, I argued, it was pretty hard to get excited about a movie where we knew the end so very well before the movie opened. But the truth is, Amelia is an engaging character study that spends most of its time focused on the relationship between Earhart and Putnam and as such, it is more a love story between a woman in the air and a man on the ground. In fact, some of the best moments of the movie have Putnam and Earhart simply talking to one another over radios without being in the same room and they manage to keep the viewer engaged even then.

The movie works because the audience wants to root for Earhart and this becomes the transformation of a humble woman with a dream into a celebrity. Earhart's story is a good one for those looking for a tale of empowerment (female or otherwise) and the relationship she and Putnam have is at times complicated, but is largely easy -to-watch and enjoy. Moreover, director Mira Nair fleshes out the love story with a wonderful visual sense. Nair has a nice sense of cinematography that breaks up the intimate scenes between Earhart and Putnam and Earhart and Vidal and makes the story seem larger than it is.

As well, in recent months, I have found the soundtrack on many movies to be intrusive. Nair keeps the soundtrack both epic in its scope and unobtrusive in its presentation. While the music supports the mood and helps to raise tension and develop the story, it never overwhelms the viewer with being too in-your-face. But here opens the perfect entry into the topic of "mediocre greatness." Just because the standard is awful and so many directors abuse the viewers with overbearing soundtracks, it should not be celebrated when a director actually operates within the boundaries of good taste. So, while it is good that Amelia is not plagued with a melodramatic soundtrack, that should be pretty standard, not the abnormal condition and that Amelia lives up to a moderately low standard only illustrates how far most modern cinema has fallen.

Which brings us to the acting. Outside Nightwatch (reviewed here!) how bad does one truly expect a film with Ewan McGregor to be? I ask that tongue-in-cheek, but there is truth to the idea that Nair has stacked the deck with McGregor, Richard Gere and Hilary Swank. Much can be written about the on-screen chemistry between Swank and Gere, but while they have a spark and it's wonderful in the movie, it is nothing exceptional on either actor's part. Gere is KNOWN for being charming and he plays a very typical role of charming Richard Gere as George Putnam. This falls easily within the range of expected abilities for an actor of Gere's caliber and we truly see nothing new from him that we have not seen before.

As for Hilary Swank, she helps bring in Oscar Pandering Season early, but not unjustly. She has a habit of playing strong female characters who stand up for an idea and ride that to their eventual end and Amelia is no exception. As Amelia Earhart, she is forthright, strong and occasionally funny. I did not know much about Earhart before seeing the movie, but my mother says Swank's performance matched a lot of the historical footage she watches obsessively. That being the case, Swank gives a good performance that is well within her previously displayed emotional range. She is a fine actress and she has a knack for picking roles that play within her known range and this is no exception by any means.

But Amelia is still enjoyable and it offers a decent contrast to the sheer amount of horror schlock on the screens in this pre-Halloween time and it a decent film, even if it comes with no real surprises in the story or in the performances.

For other works with Hilary Swank, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Million Dollar Baby
The Affair Of The Necklace
Buffy The Vampire Slayer

6/10

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

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

An Affair To Forget: The Affair Of The Necklace

The Good: Excellent cast, Two lines of dialog
The Bad: Lackluster acting, Dismal plot, Uninteresting characters, Repetitive use of footage
The Basics: The Affair Of The Necklace relates a ridiculously complicated and equally pointless tale of a young woman who inadvertently helped cause the French Revolution.


There ought to be a rule about actors appearing in period films. If you appear in a film set in the past, you may only appear in another one if your role is very different and the overall story of the movie is significantly different. As it stands, one of the necklace-making Monsieur's of The Affair Of The Necklace is the Doje in Dangerous Beauty and I found that somewhat distracting. This is not an exceptionally serious complaint, but it is the start of a litany of strikes against The Affair Of The Necklace.

The tagline for this cinematic dud is "Her birthright was stolen. Her Dignity Taken. Her Rights Denied. Deception Was The Only Option." This sets one up for a movie very different from the one I watched. The first hurdle is that the implication of the tagline is that somehow the necklace in the story is the protagonists birthright, which it is not. The second is the idea that the protagonist somehow starts at a point of serious devaluation and must rise above it. As becomes evident in my description of the plot, this is patently untrue.

Jeanne St. Remy de Valois is a young woman who was orphaned when her liberal, almost revolutionary, father spoke out in the French government for the rights of the working class person and the importance of keeping the masses happy, as opposed to simply controlled. Jeanne's earliest significant memory was of watching her father beaten to death and their house gutted by French soldiers. Now, years later, Jeanne works to gain her family name back but finds the way blocked by a Minister of Titles that hated her father and what he stood for and a monarch (Marie-Antoinette) who will only ignore her.

Thus, unable to get back her ruined family name and claim her father's decent estate, Jeanne meets up with a gigolo, Retaux de Vilette, and together they scheme to get her title back by enlisting the aid of Cardinal Louis de Rohan and then betraying him.

As far as stupid premises go, this has to be one of the top ten in human history. The Affair Of The Necklace makes the point of observing that the events in the film happened, which makes the story even more agonizingly stupid. The story is a convoluted mess of conspiracy and lies that is simplified thus: Jeanne wants her childhood house back, but cannot get it because she is a woman without a title. Marie-Antoinette ignores her, so Jeanne enlists a political adversary of the queen, Cardinal Rohan, to help her under the guise of him helping himself. Two jewelers, in the meantime, have made an insanely expensive necklace for Marie-Antoinette that she does not want. The jewelers enlist Jeanne to get Marie-Antoinette to buy the necklace so they aren't out the huge sums of money. Jeanne convinces Rohan that Marie-Antoinette wants the necklace (she doesn't) and that by helping her obtain it using his vast fortunes, he will be back in her good graces. Jeanne, I suppose, presumes that when Rohan and Marie-Antoinette have reconciled as friends they will want to do her the favor of restoring her title. It's a somewhat ridiculous and convoluted plot that is not as incomprehensible as it is pointless.

Jeanne's quest is utterly pointless given her position and desires. Jeanne wants her father's house back and she wants the family title. The first goal is easily obtainable - even for a woman of her moderate social position - by simply marrying one who is fabulously wealthy, a characteristic that several of the characters portray in the movie. But the second goal is utterly ludicrous. Why should Jeanne wish to get her family's title back? Her family has been disgraced and seen as traitors. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that having the Valois family name will associate her with traitors and revolutionaries to all those who hold the power. How far could she truly expect to get with a family name that is so marred?

I suppose in reality, people are less sensible than in fiction, which is why Jeanne is so utterly irritating to watch.

So, to go back to the tagline for the movie: Her Birthright was Stolen; So what?! It's a pretty crappy legacy for one who wants anything in pre-Revolution France. Her Dignity Taken. No evidence of that; she only seems to try the least dignified ways to get back her title. Her Rights Denied. Not really; she seems to have a remarkable freedom of movement and speech throughout the film. Only her land rights were denied and given that she married for one title, it seems inconceivable that she would not have considered marrying someone better for an even better title. Deception Was The Only Option. Certainly not. There were other options still available to her from marrying better to using the wealth she made of Cardinal Rohan early on to simply bribe the Minister of Titles.

The real downfall of The Affair Of The Necklace is in its presentation. First, the childhood scenes of the Valois Family Manor getting torched is repeated with annoying frequency throughout the first half of the movie. Second, the characters are not presented with any flair or real character and there is absolutely no chemistry between Valois and Retaux, which forces the least interesting almost-sex scene I've seen in years.

But the ultimate letdown is in the players. The cast is pretty incredible, with Jonathan Pryce, Brian Cox and Christopher Walken being names to draw in a lot of viewers. Unfortunately, not one of the actors is playing their a-game. Pryce is dull, Cox is uninspired, Walken lacks his usual charisma. Simon Baker as Retaux de Vilette is bland and Hillary Swank lacks any character or screen presence as the protagonist Jeanne. Indeed, throughout my viewing of The Affair Of The Necklace, I kept thinking that Swank looked a lot like Jennifer Garner and I was glad that Garner had not gotten dragged into this piece of crap.

Who will enjoy this? Beats me; I didn't and I like period films and love history. Who won't like this? Anyone who enjoys a good plot, decent characters and an excellent use of talented actors.

For other works with Hilary Swank, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Million Dollar Baby
Buffy The Vampire Slayer

3/10

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

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

More Mediocre Greatness, Million Dollar Baby Is More Erratic Than Amazing.

The Good: Good character development, Interesting issue in the last quarter, Decent DVD bonus features.
The Bad: Acting is nothing extraordinary, Fairly predictable character arcs, Voice-overs.
The Basics: While engaging at the beginning and end, Million Dollar Baby has a repetitive middle that is slower and fills out the movie with a greater sense of average everything than wonderful.


When one writes thousands of reviews - many of them in movies - when one looks at their body of works and considers the body of art one has witnessed, there are certain things which become much more difficult to accept. As someone who watches a lot of movies, there are movies that are considered great which I find to be much more average because the components, which might otherwise add up to greatness, fall more within the predictable range of what is expected from the actors and directors of the work. Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby left me underwhelmed because the cast and directors were so loaded toward a great work that when they merely performed as expected, the result was less extraordinary than "meets expectations."

So, for example, I make a strong distinction between "great acting" and "wonderful casting." Great acting puts actors in roles which challenge their ability to portray a character in a way that the audience would not expect from that actor. Great casting puts an actor who is good at something in a role where they can illustrate a mastery of that particular range of emotions. This is sometimes laughable when a director casts himself in a role that requires them no particular stretch. After one sees Clint Eastwood in Million Dollar Baby, roles where he directs himself in the similar curmudgeon role, like Gran Torino seem far less shocking, interesting or even good. Indeed, one might remark that Eastwood's role in Gran Torino is essentially his role of Frankie in a neighborhood as opposed to the boxing ring. Is Million Dollar Baby bad? Not by a long shot. But it is hardly as audacious as many want it to be. Instead, it is a prime example of "average greatness."

Frankie Dunn is the owner of a gym and a trainer of boxers. He and his assistant, Eddie, are living in the declining years of their lives scraping by. Frankie is abandoned by his star fighter when he will not risk putting him into a dangerous fight. It is around this time that Maggie Fitzgerald enters his gym and begs him to train her. Frankie refuses, but he cannot afford to not let Maggie train in the gym as she has paid her dues for six months. Eddie begins to coach Maggie and after financial problems rise, Frankie reluctantly takes Maggie on as his client.

Managing Maggie quickly turns into gold mine for Frankie as she dominates her class with first round knockouts. While Maggie is tempted by other managers who are willing to take greater risks with her, Maggie refuses to abandon Frankie for more profitable ventures. With a little goading from Eddie, Frankie gives Maggie her shot. As her fighting career takes off, Maggie continues to win . . . until a vicious fighter comes along and threatens everything Maggie and Frankie have built.

Right off the bat, Million Dollar Baby is not a simple sports story about female boxers. To suggest that it is is an oversimplification. Indeed, about half the film is preoccupied with Maggie convincing Frankie to train her and with Maggie's training as opposed to actually fighting. The third quarter of the film chart's Maggie's ascent as a boxer and the final act turns the movie into a debate on euthanasia. It is very difficult to discuss the film without mentioning these three things, but without going into spoilers, it is easy enough to say that: 1. The film is not just a boxing story and 2. It is a very fractured film.

The problem with Million Dollar Baby is that the character arcs are so predictable that the film's three plot stages are hard to describe as "complex." Instead, the movie has a remarkably erratic feeling instead of one that develops and evolves. In other words, while the plot takes a radical right turn, the characters remain predictable and obvious, making the movie seem alternately complex and brain-numbingly predictable. That awkward dichotomy leaves it with the label "erratic" in my book.

Million Dollar Baby is narrated by Eddie and here the movie is just plain annoying. The film medium is ideal for showing stories, telling through the visual medium. If a story is sufficiently complex, it makes sense to clue viewers in to things that might not be visually obvious by providing voice-overs. In recent years, voice-overs have been used to explain an awful lot of things in movies (and especially on television) that are pretty obvious without them. Million Dollar Baby is dumbed down by these voice-overs where Eddie tells viewers things that are ridiculously easy to see on screen as far as plot events and the straightforward character developments.

How are the character arcs obvious? The main characters, Frankie and Maggie, follow remarkably predictable arcs. Frankie is gruff and unlikable. Estranged from his daughter, initially reluctant to take on a female boxer as his client, Frankie is given only one way for his character to go when Maggie enters the movie and he goes exactly down that road. Frankie will loosen up to Maggie and given their age difference and the fact that it is an American film, Frankie will become her surrogate father (if it were French, he would become her lover). Lo and behold, this is the precise way Frankie develops, so much so that when Maggie tells Frankie a story about her relationship with her father, later Frankie is put into the role of the father in a mirroring story.

Similarly, Maggie's role is equally predictable. There is pretty much no story to Million Dollar Baby if Maggie's dream of being a woman boxer is realized, despite her age. So, one knows when she begins begging Frankie to train her eventually he will and Maggie will become a boxer of some ability. If Maggie got pounded bad right off the bat, it would be a comedy or a very brief tragedy. No, here the tragedy comes much later. This is not to say that Maggie's character is not interesting. Maggie is heartbreaking to witness as one sees the way she tries to do nice things for her mother, only to be verbally abused and eventually used.

Here, it is worth revisiting the idea of good casting versus good acting. Hillary Swank plays Maggie Fitzgerald and she is applauded in any number of reviews for the fact that she trained for the role, much the way Rene Zellweger put on weight for Bridget Jones' Diary. The ability or willingness to put on muscle mass for a role does not make a great performance any more than a well-made costume does. Objectively viewed, Swank's portrayal of the female boxer is much more mediocre as she plays the role almost entirely with a simplicity that the character never grows out of. Swank does slack-jawed and yokelish well enough, but there is little depth in her performance . . . until the last quarter of the film. In that section, Swank is forced to emote through her eyes and sell the viewer on a very different character without the ability to vocally play earnest and she does it masterfully.

Clint Eastwood, too, is given almost no emotional range to play until the last quarter of the film. That last half hour, as Eastwood's Frankie has to wrestle with powerful emotions, comes after one is so bored with Eastwood's performance that it is tough to call it great. No, it is exactly what one expects of a cowboy actor who plays a rugged, manly man. Only in the film's last moments is Eastwood allow to soften his steely eyes and express something other than Alpha Male, but it is too late for most viewers to care.

That said, Million Dollar Baby has just enough to recommend it in that the turn the movie takes in the last quarter is enough to ask important questions about quality of life. The movie has an answer and one of the nice things screenwriter Paul Haggis does is he makes the answer seem almost undeniably simple and direct. Here quality of life is put against "sanctity" of life and Frankie comes to a quick, powerful decision that is easy to look at, nod in agreement and leave the film with little debate as to the resolution.

On DVD, Million Dollar Baby is loaded with about all of the bonus features one would expect from a drama. There is a commentary track and a bonus disc with featurettes on the making of the film, with focus on Hillary Swank's training for the role. There are a few deleted scenes and observations from real women who box and those who like the film are likely to enjoy the bonus materials.

As the winner of the 2005 Best Picture, this is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, which is online here!

For other fine dramas, please check out my reviews of:
The Verdict
The Social Network
Glengarry Glen Ross

6/10

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

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




| | |