Bernie Is A Good Almost-Documentary That Prioritizes Substance Over Sparkle.

The Good: Interesting story, Good characters, Jack Black’s performance
The Bad: Tone/pacing
The Basics: Bernie is, ultimately, a glorified newsmagazine special of a murder case that takes far, far, too long to become anything.


Lately, when my wife and I finish watching a film, she turns to me and asks, “What are you going to give it?” because she knows I will review anything and everything that comes before me. When Bernie was done, we had a rare discussion about the film. Her family had left a copy for us to watch on their last visit and we finally watched it, pretty late at night. Bernie was engaging enough that I stayed awake an hour and a half after my usual bedtime to watch it and it was presented in a way that continued to develop such that I could not fall asleep during it (not that that was my first instinct).

But the more and more my wife and I talked about Bernie - and I did like it – the more I was forced to admit that, more than anything, I simply did not care how the film turned out. My wife analogized Bernie to a 48 Hours television special, without the ominous tone (I used the phrase “sensationalism”) and she was right. Bernie is very much like a profile on a television newsmagazine, usually the type where the trajectory of a killer is traced with voiceovers that make the person seem terrible and their crimes almost inevitable (or, conversely, utterly shocking). Bernie is very much like that, but without the tone or sensationalism and, for a significant part of the movie, a crime. In fact, it is remarkably late in the movie that the film evolves from somewhat boring character profile to an abrupt murder, cover up and inevitable trial. The erratic nature of Bernie left me feeling the film was far more average than exceptional, though I did enjoy it.

Bernie Tiede is a Texan in his late thirties, who is a mortician’s assistant in Carthage, Texas. Beloved by all the locals for the way he has a kind word for everyone and goes out of his way for the bereaved, Bernie finds success and happiness in the small community. Marjorie Nugent, on the other hand, is reviled my most of the town for the way she is mean to everyone and delights in rejecting loans in her position at the local bank after her husband dies. But, when her husband dies, she and Bernie strike up an unlikely friendship. Against all odds, Marjorie allows Bernie to console her and soon they are seen everywhere traveling together and spending time in one another’s company.

That relationship, however, takes a turn for the unhealthy when Marjorie starts controlling Bernie’s time and keeps him under the thumb. Frustrated one day at her berating him, Bernie picks up the armadillo shooting rifle and shoots her in the back four times. After that, Bernie continually comes up with excuses for why people cannot visit Marjorie, while at the same time using her considerable assets to benefit everyone in the community. But Marjorie’s stockbroker and the local district attorney slowly come to believe something is amiss and when they find her body, Bernie is taken into custody.

Bernie is based upon a true story, so all my comments – it should be noted – pertain only to the film Bernie. Bernie takes its time to adequately illustrate just what a nice guy Bernie Tiede is, and it does that exceptionally effectively. But the film plods along without any purpose for quite some time as Bernie just keeps doing nice things in Texas and by the time something actually happens (i.e. he shoots Marjorie), I had almost completely lost interest. In fact, it almost seems like writer and director Richard Linklater got bored as well because he forgot almost all of the rising action leading up to the murder. Bernie’s defense at his trial has to do with how controlling Marjorie was, but that is not exceptionally well-illustrated in Bernie; the scene before, Bernie is off flying the plane Marjorie seems to have bought for him. In other words, Bernie fails to show the man oppressed in a serious or crippling way.

This is to the detriment of the film because as soon as the accountant goes snooping and Marjorie’s body is found, Bernie focuses quite a bit on D.A. Danny Buck, a thoroughly unlikable character. So, despite loathing Buck and his methods, Linklater’s Bernie is only so persuasive because the first half of the film convinces the viewer that Bernie and his perspective can be trusted.

Shirley MacLaine plays Marjorie and she has vastly fewer lines than most of the townspeople (who are played by themselves, actual peers of the real Bernie Tiede) and her role is basically a supporting one that is comparatively minor. Similarly, Matthew McConaughey’s Daniel Buck only comes into his own in the last third of the film and he quietly develops the character in reaction shots more than he defines him through anger or bluster. Buck’s fate is not mentioned in the closing credits and that is unfortunate, so McConaughey effectively generated enough interest to make the viewer care whether the D.A. got re-elected or not.

Most of the movie rests on the performance of Jack Black, as Bernie Tiede. Black gives a performance that instantly reminded me of Zach Galifianakis in The Campaign (reviewed here!), but to be fair, Black beat him to the mannerisms. Regardless, this is a role unlike any I’ve seen Jack Black in and he carries it effectively, showcasing his musical range along the way.

Ultimately, Bernie is a simple movie, well worth watching once, but unless it is leading up to a retrial or pardon (one supposes the Governor of Texas could watch Bernie and be moved or Obama could use a Presidential pardon on the guy) it is hard to muster up the enthusiasm to rewatch the film.

For other works with Shirley MacLaine, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Around The World In 80 Days
The Apartment
Terms Of Endearment
In Her Shoes
Rumor Has It . . .
Valentine’s Day

5.5/10

Check out how this film stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the film reviews are organized from best film to worst!

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

After Years Of Being Encouraged To View,I Sit Down And Fail To Enjoy The Holiday.

The Good: Moments (infrequent) of acting, Moments of charm
The Bad: Utterly predictable, Much of the character elements, Light on DVD bonus features, Acting
The Basics: In The Holiday, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz lead a decent cast, almost universally performing poorly, in a boring, terribly predictable romantic comedy.


My mother has been on me to watch The Holiday for the last two years. In fact, it might be the very first movie she finished watching and insisted right away that I sit down and watch. I have been busy, between writing novels and reviewing movies that I want to review, but lately a break in my schedule and supply ran out, so I decided to give my mother's beloved movie a chance.

Nancy Meyers, who directed Something's Gotta' Give (reviewed here!) and What Women Want (reviewed here!), two movies I found terribly average, returns to write and direct this Christmas-themed romantic (alleged) comedy. I was largely underwhelmed by the movie, most notably by the acting. It seemed like all of the actors had moments they were decent in, until the moments they were used in familiar ways (save Kate Winslet, who was fine throughout). But for the most part, this is a predictable, obvious romance movie with predictable pairings and a pretty obvious resolution.

Iris Simpkins is working with the love of her life at a publication where she writes about society's great weddings. She is hopelessly in love - in an unrequited way - with Jasper Bloom, with whom she flirts and swaps Christmas gifts up until the moment that he abruptly announces he is engaged to be married to someone else. Devastated, Iris looks to flee. This, conveniently enough, occurs more or less at the same time that movie trailer maker Amanda Woods breaks up with her long-term boyfriend for an affair she suspected he had and soon confirms for her. Looking to get out of Los Angeles, she finds a place in Surrey, England, to swap houses with and the person she is swapping with happens to be Iris. As Iris goes to Los Angeles to a much bigger, luxurious place, Amanda finds herself in a cozy cottage in Surrey where there is nothing to do but wrestle with her personal demons.

In Amanda's house and neighborhood, Iris encounters the film composer Miles, but seems even more drawn to the elderly writer in the neighborhood, Arthur Abbott, who she rescues while he is wandering one day. As Iris avoids Jasper, she helps Arthur get into shape for an award's ceremony in his honor and discovers Miles is charming and less attached than he initially seems. Amanda, thrilled to be away from Ethan, finds herself in the company of Graham, who appears to be something of a womanizer . . . until Amanda meets the women in his life and realizes things have become complicated between them!

The Holiday starts slow, develops to boring and ends lackluster. In fact, the only parts of the movie worth watching are the moments between Iris and Arthur. Here's why: those parts of the movie use the cast in the best possible way and eliminate most of the problems the film possesses. They move, they have character elements that make sense (sort of) and the actors and acting in them are decent. Viewed out of context of the rest of the movie, even the problematic aspects of those scenes work.

Arguably the best moment of the film, the moment that actually has something original and different to say, in The Holiday comes in one of the scenes between Arthur and Iris. That moment has Arthur evaluating Iris as the "best friend" role in her own life. It is a decent monologue and a great concept and Iris latches onto it. The problem is, it doesn't fit Iris's character. Arthur gets it right; she is not the leading lady in her own life, but she isn't even the best friend; she is a non-speaking supernumerary (background performer). Iris is such a nonentity and there is so little interest paid in the way she is painted from the outset that her portions are painful and boring to watch up until the time that Arthur comes into the movie to share the screen with her.

Romantic comedies do not necessarily have to trade on surprise, so predictability in a movie like The Holiday is not necessarily devastating. But in this case, everything is predictable and it is unpleasant how simple the writer and director assumes the audience is. While the mood at the outset is interesting and appropriately painful, at least in the Iris/Jasper relationship, the film soon fails to trade on even that intrigue. As a result, Miles and Iris come together simply by the virtue that they are proximate to one another at the holidays. Neither one seems emotionally intelligent. Come to think of it, neither does Graham, who latches right on to Amanda, who has just ended a five-year relationship.

In the movie filled with people who are otherwise smart, but appear to be emotional idiots, the least interesting characters are Amanda Woods and Ethan. Amanda excising Ethan works, but the resulting need to get away makes little sense to those schooled in the way of psychology hardly seems real. For sure, there is no one way to react to trauma and change, but Amanda gets rid of Ethan, cuts a perfect trailer (which was one of the problems Ethan had with her) and flees rather than bury herself in her work. If the movie had even had a single scene where she wore out her workers cutting films before she was forced to take a vacation, the character would have worked much, much better.

That said, the only truly interesting man in the movie is Arthur, largely because he is the character that seems to be best acted (an irony, considering that Arthur is probably much closer to actor Eli Wallach than any of the other actors are to their characters). The problematic aspects of the movie are all exploded by the acting. Edward Burns and Rufus Sewell are strangely bland in their roles as rejected male love interests. Jude Law and Jack Black both have moments where they are decent, but those moments fade ridiculously quickly when both of them fall back on their standards. Law is fine up until the moment where he is expected to give the Jude Law Penetrating Look #5 that is supposed to make all of the women swoon and . . . completely does not fit his character of Graham.

Similarly, Jack Black is either stuck into his same niche or the part was altered when he was cast or the role of Miles was written with him in mind. I write this because Black is great up until a scene in a video store with Winslet. Miles - up until that point - has been friendly, but serious and grounded and the role had Jack Black actually acting. But in that scene, he begins singing various scores from movies and his character never recovers from that. Yes, it is after that that the scene from the trailer with the "brushing the boob" line comes up and that is a perfectly Jack Black delivery. Unfortunately, it is not in character for Miles so much as it is Black.

At least Jack Black is given the moments to play before his character or performance turn south. Cameron Diaz is not even given that chance. Instead, she starts off with the same bug-eyed, momentarily spastic performance she has become known for and she never pulls herself out of it. This is not even for a moment a stretch for her as an actress and it is reminiscent of several prior roles of hers.

The only actress who seems to hold it together is Kate Winslet, who is decent as Iris, though the character is far more boring than Arthur or Miles ever admits. Winslet is good, but the role is not great.

This is, perhaps, emblematic of the entire movie. The Holiday is a ridiculously simple pitch concept: two women swap houses and fall in love with people in their new setting as a result. The problem is it never becomes more than that and it is not a great concept even with that. On DVD, there are previews for other movies and a commentary track with writer/director Nancy Meyers that I was not bored or interested enough to subject myself to. There are plenty of other movies out there I would rather devote my time and energy to.

For other works with Eli Wallach, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Mystic River
Keeping The Faith

4.5/10

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

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

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy: Very Funny, But Very Average Comedy.

The Good: Funny, DVD bonus features, Generally the acting
The Bad: Somewhat repetitive humor
The Basics: Funny, but often a one-trick pony, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy excels on the acting front more than on the character or plot points.


Some part of me has come to entirely embrace the old axiom that it is easier to get work if you already have it. I come to this acceptance by way of watching more and more movies my wife loves. She is a big fan of films I derisively call "dumb comedies." She doesn't argue; she's looking for light fare full of dick and fart jokes, unburdened by social commentary. She wants foul language, nudity and jokes that are racy and while I have not, traditionally, been a fan of such fare, I have found a few that I enjoy. Largely, the ones that she enjoys are the works that feature Will Ferrell in them. She's a fan and there are a few works by or featuring Ferrell or from his production company that I have come to enjoy.

The latest in the parade of movies my partner has subjected me to is Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy. This brings me back to my original premise. Having just seen The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard which is by the same creative team as Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy and Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby, it is easy to see how the production company makes its friends and sticks with them. The primary cast for the three films is startlingly similar, especially with the troupe surrounding Ferrell. It seems David Koechner and Kathryn Hahn, for example, have comedic talents Ferrell and his team enjoy exploiting. The only problematic aspect of their continued cinematic associations is that they never seem to be asked to do anything other than their initial shtick. Fortunately, Ferrell and his team mix it up by infusing other talent, like Steve Carell and Christina Applegate into their otherwise familiar mix.

In Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy, Will Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a newscaster in San Diego who is at the top of his game. He wins the nightly ratings battle for the attention of his audience and reports the news with his team, smoking and drinking his way through his sappy deliveries of the nightly news. In the 1970s, Burgundy becomes a legend and his arrogance grows, in part because he is surrounded by sycophants like Champ Kind, Brian Fantana, and weatherman Brick Tamland. But when diversity becomes the word of the day, Burgundy is teamed up with investigative reporter and newscaster Veronica Corningstone.

While Ron works to seduce Veronica, she finds his advances both annoying and charming. When they do hook up, Ron almost immediately violates their privacy by reporting the act. After further incidents which disrespect her, Veronica sets out for revenge. She gets it through Ron's Achilles heel; having Ron swear on air by simply changing his call line on the teleprompter. As Veronica takes over, Ron flounders and his team struggle to get on without him.

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is essentially a mock documentary of the life of Ron Burgundy and the humor is derived largely from uncomfortable deadpans and such things as one of the characters (Brick) being mentally retarded and socially awkward. The reversals, like Ron promising Veronica he will not say anything about their sex immediately followed by him telling all of his friends, tend to happen quickly and be very predictable. This is not to say the film isn't funny, but it is a very standard sort of absurdist humor for which Will Ferrell is famous. That said, there's not much surprising here.

Ferrell presents Ron Burgundy as a stiff, strangely formal character whose on-air persona never goes away. As a result, when he tries to interact with friends or with Veronica, there come strange deliveries that seem inappropriate for the setting (imagine having a newscaster on a dinner date who spoke with the same deliveries as they did on-air). Ferrell is adept at the deliveries and he makes Ron Burgundy funny as a result. However, because most of the humor is related directly to either delivering the news or scoring with Veronica, much of the movie seems repetitive.

This is where DVD truly pushes a film up; in the bonus features, where Will Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy for an interview, the result is absolutely hilarious. Ferrell is fearless in his presentation of the parody opposite a serious interviewer and the result is comic gold. Similarly, the outtakes and deleted scenes are very funny.

What Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy does best is lampoon the pretensions of the news industry, especially in the way it attempts to make information entertainment. Things like the repeated joke where Burgundy and his team stride toward the camera and look earnestly at it and one another effectively skewer the way actual news organizations try to blur the lines between disseminating information and keeping an audience hooked with personalities. Of course, the movie is not at all just social commentary, which is made evident by the battle royale that occurs between Ron Burgundy's news crew and those of the competing stations (which is little more than an excuse for cameos by people like Ben Stiller). That scene creates a parody of violence and offsets the predictable and slow moments revolving around the news story of the decade, a pregnant panda at the San Diego zoo.

All of the actors are thoroughly invested in their roles and it is hard to actually criticize the acting here. While Ferrell and Koechner do their usual schtick - they play off one another wonderfully - and Fred Willard plays the station manager pretty much exactly as any fan of his would predict, other performers nail their roles. Steve Carell, for example, establishes his dry wit on the big screen perfectly as Brick. He has a dry delivery that underplays any form of sarcasm and given that this is one of his roles before The Office, it is easy to see how he got that role. He plays Brick as a hapless mentally challenged individual and that works.

But the real standout for acting has to be Christina Applegate. Yes, Christina Applegate, whose fame was predicated on her looks, appears in Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy as Veronica and she is impressive. Veronica is basically the straightman to Ron's absurdity and Applegate plays off Ferrell's over-the-top comic sense with an understated delivery that makes her the perfect foil. More than that, she plays Veronica as incredibly smart and she seems mature and intelligent enough to plausibly be in the place she is. Applegate is a surprise who steals all of her scenes.

This is quite a feat when one considers that much of the movie is spent with the characters staring at the camera delivering lines. When not doing that, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is simple hoping to grab laughs off the look of the 1970s personas. Ron dresses in a maroon suit and he and his companions have big-70s hair. Those jokes replay less well than the satirical comments on the news industry but they still work.

Largely, though, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is good, escapist humor that sets out to get some laughs and it does that. It does little more than that, but it works for what it is.

For other works with David Koechner, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Piranha 3DD
Paul
Extract
Sex Drive
Get Smart
Let’s Go To Prison
Farce Of the Penguins
Thank You For Smoking
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Waiting . . .

6/10

For other movie 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.
| | |

The Big Year Is Another Decent, Little, Movie

The Good: Moments of humor, Good acting, Moments of character
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs
The Basics: The Big Year showcases some wonderful acting from Steve Martin and Jack Black, but is ultimately an unambitious story packaged with great nature footage.


I have, in the interest of full disclosure, no real interest in birds or birding or even movies that are about competitions. I don’t think I have ever seen an entire episode of The Amazing Race even. I am, however, discovering that I like the works of Steve Martin more and more and as a result, I was eager to watch The Big Year. The Big Year became an opportunity for my wife and I to have a long-distance date, which was pretty nice. I picked up the film on DVD, she got a copy in Michigan and we watched it together, from 500 miles apart.

Usually, my personal anecdotes serve only as introduction, but in this case, it is germane. One of the important themes of The Big Year is loneliness and it’s a lonely thing to be apart from the one I love. Watching The Big Year, I would have expected more of a tug, given how many characters experience frustration, emotional tugs, or outright loss based upon how their attempt to be the number one birder (bird spotter) in the world progresses. But I didn’t. The Big Year does what it sets out to do well, but not in a superlative fashion that really made me feel enthusiastic about recommending the film.

Was it bad? No. But it did not rise to extraordinary. It did not leave much for my wife and I to discuss afterward, either.

Brad Harris is a tech support worker near a nuclear power plant who has his eyes set on breaking Kenny Bostick’s 732 bird birding record. Single and using funds from his reluctant father, Brad prepares to squeeze in a year’s worth of bird watching for his “big year” while still keeping his job. Stu Preissler is finally retiring (this time for real) in order to have his big year after a lifetime of corporate deals and putting off his own wants. Financially solid, he is supported in his endeavor by his wife, who understands birding is important to him, but does not share his passion for it. Kenny Bostick, for his part, feels utterly insecure in his new world record. So, despite his wife Jessica taking fertility treatments so they might have children, Kenny rushes off to “set the pace” for the new year.

What follows are a series of encounters as Brad and Stu meet and become friends, while denying that they are actually working on their big year. Stu takes Brad under his wing and keeps the young man from starving on the road. He also encourages Brad to talk with birder Ellie, who does all sorts of bird calls. Kenny’s paranoia soon begins to show and he begins playing games and making maneuvers in order to keep Brad and Stu off-guard and on the path away from breaking his world record. In the process, Brad and Stu experience betrayal, loss, and come to understand just what is truly important to each of them.

What is enjoyable about The Big Year is watching how each of the three main characters deal with the tugging on them by outsiders. Clearly, all three of these men are happiest when they are birding. Stu seems the most financially set for pursuing his big year and though he misses the birth of his grandson, he continues with his plan to bird. Even the incompetence of his two former employees, Jim and Barry, is not enough to distract him for very long. By the time the film is nearing its end and Jim and Barry beg him to return to his business as the new CEO, it is obvious well in advance how he will respond. In fact, Steve Martin’s delivery is so clear as Stu that it is shocking he needed to make it explicit for Jim and Barry!

At the other end of the spectrum is Brad. Brad is trying to do all of the travel for the year on $14,000. At the outset of the film, he hits his father up for $5,000 and his mother volunteers to be Brad’s travel agent. Brad struggles and when his work actually needs him to stay for a weekend, he does so only to be able to fund the next leg of his trip. The romantic subplot between him and Ellie is appropriately cute and heartbreaking and makes for a nice way for Stu to help guide Brad. Brad is one of the only characters Jack Black has played with whom it was easy to empathize.

Experiencing far more complicated emotions – though Brad has to deal with his father’s failing health and Stu wrestles with what it means to be absent from the lives of his wife, children and new grandchildren – is Kenny. Kenny quickly realizes that the top is a very tenuous place and his journey rapidly transforms from a something enjoyable into a desperate attempt to hold onto what he has. The choices Kenny makes are often disappointing or disturbing and even from five hundred miles away, I could hear my wife yelling “no!” when Kenny had the opportunity to be at the right place at the right time with his wife.

The acting in the Big Year is the film’s superlative aspect. While much of the narrative has the feel – and even look – of a Wes Anderson film, David Frankel gets decent performances out of Jack Black, Steve Martin and Owen Wilson. The only questionable moment of performance in The Big Year could even be written off as a character moment! As Jack Black’s Brad searches for his father in a snow-covered woods, he does not look down at the snow for tracks, he keeps looking up into the trees. That was a baffling choice to me, from a rational perspective, but it could make sense for a guy who is always used to finding what he is looking for up in the air, as opposed to down on the ground.

Now on DVD, The Big Year has both the theatrical and extended cuts, but no other bonus features. That makes it much easier to recommend for a viewing, than for one to buy to add to their permanent collection.

For other works with Owen Wilson, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Hall Pass
Marmaduke
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Darjeeling Limited
Night At The Museum
The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou
The Royal Tenenbaums
Zoolander
Meet The Parents
Bottle Rocket

5.5/10

For other movies, check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

Just Another Teen Movie: Orange County

The Good: Amusing In parts, Cameos, Moments of acting
The Bad: Much of the plot, Predictable character arcs, Oversimplified resolutions
The Basics: A surprisingly disappointing film, Orange County follows a witless quest to get into Stanford or maybe learn the obvious.


When I sat down to Orange County, I had high hopes. I had seen some extended trailers for it and I was excited; it looked intelligent and funny. Within a half hour into the flick, I was fast on my way to being disappointed. It appeared early on that the eighty-some minute film put its best moments forth in the three minute trailer.

Orange County follows Shaun Brumder, A-student, aspiring author on his quest to get into Stanford. What ought to be an easy task for this brilliant young man is thwarted by a dimwitted guidance counselor who mistakenly sends the wrong transcript to the college. Shaun then goes on a road trip with his drug addled brother Lance and idealistic girlfriend Ashley to Stanford to make the case for Shaun's admission in person. And the film goes down from there. In the process of trying to set things right, Shaun meets his idol, author Marcus Skinner, Ashley drugs the dean of admissions and Lance burns down the admissions building.

Sigh. I had such hopes for this film. In truth, this film begins with an intelligent premise and a slick sense of humor and quickly degenerates into an oversimplistic fantasy of a teenager whose from a broken home. I don't mean Shaun, though his parents are divorced, I mean the author of this film. All of the conflicts in Orange County are resolved quickly and without any real insight into the human condition.

The purpose of the film seems to be to get Shaun into Stanford and Shaun's journey into understanding that Orange County is where he truly needs to be. But the premise is set up for a film far more intelligent than that. That is, a kid as bright as Shaun ought to have figured out by the end of high school that kids everywhere are essentially the same. It comes as a revelation to Shaun that Stanford students listen to the same music, feel the same way about literature and dress essentially the same as those in Orange County. Stanford doesn't equal deep and intellectual and a student as bright as Shaun ought to have realized this long before now.

Instead, this seems to come as a tremendous revelation to Shaun and it comes across as silly to the viewer. Shaun ends up appearing far more dimwitted than reasonable. And his conflict with Stanford is too easily resolved. In fact, all conflicts are too simply and neatly tied up by the end. Shaun's parents, divorced for some time, have one affair and decide to get back together, Shaun's father donates a vast amount of money to Stanford to get Shaun in and Ashley simply asks Shaun to stay and he acquiesces. None of the conflicts seem to have any magnitude as they are all simply resolved along the path of least resistance.

Or the path that requires the least drama and sensibility. The plot with Shaun's parents is especially troubling for anyone looking for anything intelligent here.

Equally disturbing is the acting in Orange County. The cast is made up of actors playing characters and a pool of cameos. Colin Hanks does a competent job as Shaun, creating a strange mix of apathy and manic devotion to the concept of Stanford. Jack Black does a wonderful job as Lance, making the drugged out stereotype funny and almost realistic.

Schuyler Fisk, who plays Ashley, is said to be one of today's hottest stars. After Orange County, I'm not sure why. Outside bringing her fabulous hair to the project, she added nothing to Ashley that wasn't on the page and didn't seem to radiate anything. In fact, John Lithgow had far more screen presence, infusing facial gestures and body language with lines that could easily have come across as canned to create one of the film's most noteworthy characters.

And then there are the cameos. Garry Marshall, Harold Ramis, Chevy Chase, Lily Tomlin, Kevin Kline and Ben Stiller all appear in the film. Now, I'm not an idiot; those are all actors, not characters. Too bad they don't actually work that way in the movie. In Orange County, these brief roles appear and the top name actors who play them bring nothing to the roles besides themselves. So, for instance, when Ben Stiller appears as a fireman, the scene plays as Ben Stiller in a fireman's uniform. It's still Ben Stiller. And Stiller is fine, but he's not playing a fireman, he's playing Ben Stiller. And so on with all of these cameos.

That's disappointing, but typical for a film that sells itself well in the three minute version, but fails to deliver for the bulk of the picture. Orange County is plagued by cliches of the irresponsible older brother, the overachieving father and the kooky girlfriend and resolutions that are disproportionately simple to the problems.

That's not to say it's all bad. The film is funny and I found myself laughing at several points, especially near the beginning. And if I have nothing else to do, it's likely I'll even watch the flick again. But I'll always be disappointed because I was convinced this was going to break the mold and be something worth seeing over and over again. Instead, I got the same old comedy. I'd rather watch Dogma. Hell, even Mallrats has a leg up on this.

For other works with John Lithgow, please visit my reviews of:
Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
Leap Year
Confessions Of A Shopaholic
Shrek
Terms Of Endearment

5/10

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

© 2012, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A One-Line Concept Film Leaves Me Murky On The Message: Shallow Hal

The Good: Decent concept, Amusing moments, Average DVD bonus features
The Bad: Not terribly funny, Predictable
The Basics: A fairly average film based on a decent concept, Shallow Hal does what it promises to do with surprisingly few laughs, but decent enough presentation to warrant a viewing.


When we fall in love, we open up to new experiences. As a lover of movies, music, books and the like, that means that for me, I am opening up to new performers as I fall in love more. In practical terms, this means that I am giving Jack Black and his movies a second look. I have largely been in the Family Guy camp that Black's movies tend to be like their parody "The Unconventional Butler" and I have not lost much sleep on the idea that I had not seen many films starring Jack Black. In fact, the only movie that comes instantly to mind that I have seen of Black's is Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) in which he has only a bit part.

So when my love recently sat through Magnolia (reviewed here!) with me, I felt I should show interest in some of the films on her shelf. Truth be told, Shallow Hal was one I had heard mixed reviews on and still had some desire to see. Yes, falling in love is a good reason to see movies you might otherwise be on the fence about.

Hal Larson is a middle management type who is passed over for promotions and advancement at his job, so he spends his nights cruising the bars trying to pick up drunk, hot chicks. He and his lone friend, Mauricio, keep a running tally of the play they are getting and compare notes, seeking only vacuous relationships based on sex. It is doubtful either one has ever had a meaningful relationship, much less actually scored with the women who tend to be indifferent at best to them.

After floundering in this manner for a while, Hal meets success guru Tony Robbins, who gets trapped with Hal in an elevator. After hours of therapy with Robbins, Hal is brainwashed by Robbins to see inner beauty as stereotypical physical beauty. The result is that Hal begins to see beautiful women everywhere, who Mauricio is shocked about due to them not being the physical specimens Hal claims them to be. This culminates in an awkward meeting between Hal and Rosemary, who is leery of Hal's advances, but soon comes to see he is being genuine. As Hal and Rosemary - who happens to be the boss's daughter - get closer, Hal falls in love with her more, much to Mauricio's annoyance, as all he sees is a three hundred pound woman.

Shallow Hal is a remarkably simple, average comedy that is plagued by one severe conceptual problem. I can live with the way the film hides all the fat jokes by having the stick-figure Gwyneth Paltrow be the one on camera drinking up the giant milkshake and making the giant splash in the pool. Shallow Hal is borderline on how it views fat people, opting for the noble theme of inner beauty is more important than outer beauty . . . sort of.

Inner beauty is seen by Hal as Hollywood external beauty. That is the one-line concept of the film. Once you get that the reason Hal wants to score with Rosemary is because she looks like Gwyneth Paltrow and that she looks like Gwyneth Paltrow because she is altruistic, kind and funny, you pretty much get the entire film. But where Shallow Hal falls down is that the reversal is not true.

Hal sees women of charisma and spunk as Hollywood beautiful. What fails to hold in the film is that Hal does not see vacuous, trendy lousy personalitied people as ugly. So, in other words, only the people who are fat and nasty would be seen by Hal as ugly. Everyone else is Hollywood beautiful in his eyes. This is what I don't buy about Shallow Hal. In order for the concept to work, he should have seen someone who is Hollywood beautiful, but mean, nasty and vain as a leper. He does not. Instead, men and women alike who are endowed with a good personality are seen by Hal as Hollywood beautiful. In effect, all Tony Robbins' spell does is level the playing field for non-Hollywood beautiful types.

That gargantuan hole in the concept left me feeling underwhelmed by the movie. But what brought Shallow Hal back up to average territory in my schema was the other psychological aspects surrounding the people Hal comes to see as beautiful. So, for example, what might seem like a cheap fat joke - when Hal meets Rosemary's mother and comments on how Rosemary must get her figure from her mother - actually makes a decent sociological statement. Why do we only see the benefit of heredity when the result is stick-figure thin? After all, there is no less a genetic connection between two portly people and if one likes a robust, curvy woman, why must that be taken as an insult?

But even better in the film is how Hal's treatment of Rosemary opens others up to the rotten way they have treated her in the past. Yes, glorifying your non-stereotypically beautiful lover and treating her like she is every bit as beautiful as the women on magazine covers can change the world. It illustrates to parents - like Rosemary's mother and father - just how unsupportive they have been to their daughter, who works hard and does some amazing things with her life and time (like volunteer work and charity work).

This - and Mauricio's character arc - are the redeeming messages of the film. Shallow Hal attempts to reteach what we ought to have mastered in grade school, that being nice to people is a good thing and that personality is more important than looks. Mauricio's character arc in the movie is obvious - he realizes just how shallow he has been and how he truly screwed Hal over by taking the whammy off Hal after he has fallen in love with Rosemary - but it is still a worthwhile one. I suspect I would have been vastly more disappointed had Mauricio not learned any lesson at all.

That said, Shallow Hal is much more of a concept film than a character one. Rosemary is as much a stereotype as Hal, with her large but jolly nature and altruistic ways. Hal seems to run into the nicest fat women in the city, but none of the mean, angry bitter ones (who should still look terrible to him). Rosemary is the stereotype of the jolly fat (wo)man. Just as Mauricio and Hal are the loser cruisers who are clearly just out for sex, Rosemary is more a type than an actual and actualized character.

That said, the role of Rosemary is a decent one for Gwyneth Paltrow. She is allowed to play with her shy, understated side and that works well, especially compared to the more forceful and obviously strong women she has played in the past. Paltrow has a great physical sense when she plays meek or shy and the role is well-developed by her.

As for Jack Black and Jason Alexander, who play Hal and Mauricio, one wishes that they could endorse the roles as great acting on the part of either one of them. Black does a good job, not overemphasizing his usual manic on-screen nature. But Jason Alexander is presented here as more a bit of decent casting than great acting. There are far too many similarities between Mauricio and Alexander's famed character George Costanza to see Alexander as doing much more than reprising his best-known role in some crucial scenes. Alexander does open up the body language of Mauricio more than George ever did, so there is that, at least.

That said, Shallow Hal is a decent Sunday afternoon movie. When you're done running errands and want to sit and watch something and be entertained, this movie will fit the bill. It is not a great film of enduring quality that holds up over hundreds of viewings, but it is entertaining and it works well to make the point it sets out to make. And with that, I shall return to my smoking hot fiance, uncaring of whether it is her physical beauty or personality I am seeing!

For other works featuring Gwyneth Paltrow, please visit my reviews of:
Contagion
Glee: The 3-D Concert Movie
Glee - Season Two, Volume 1
Iron Man 2
Iron Man
The Royal Tenenbaums
Bounce
Shakespeare In Love

5/10

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

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

An Urban Comedy Under The Sea: Shark Tale

The Good: I'm stretching here, so I'll say "moments of humor"
The Bad: Unimpressive Animation, Obvious overused story, one-dimensional characters, just dumb
The Basics: Shark Tale should be avoided for its gross racism and sexism that attempts to fly by as "family fare."


Some time ago, it became part of popular culture to refer to all things "black" as "urban." That is to say, when people want to use a polite euphemism for "black," they say "urban." Thus, it became something strangely appropriate to talk about the language of "urban music" as opposed to saying "man, people swear a lot in that newfangled black music." Or we started to talk about "urban crime" instead of "black on black crime." Sometimes, things are just plain ridiculous.

I preface this review this way because within five minutes of beginning Shark Tale, it became obvious to me that I was watching the same "urban comedy" I've seen before. I've seen such jokes and character types in such bla . . , er, "urban" movies as Barbershop and . . . well, others that aren't coming immediately to mind. All I know is that within a few minutes of watching the protagonist in Shark Tale, I felt that someone at Dreamworks, at some meeting somewhere, said "we need to do something to bring in more money. We need to target a new audience. What audience haven't we exploited yet?" "Well, there's a black audience we've neglected." "Phil! It's 'urban!' But good idea. We could make an urban film and use all sorts of urban actors to flesh out our world. Who's the most popular urban actor of our time?" "Well, there's Denzel . . ." "What about that Fresh Prince guy? He's kind of urban?" "Yeah, he's wildly popular! Call Will Smith! We'll need a good urban actress to star along side him. Who could that be?" "Well, how about Angela Bassett? Or Vivica A. Fox?" "No, Phil, we need someone even more Urban, you know with a capital B, er, U." "How about Renee Zellweger and Angelina Jolie?" "Well, they're pretty whi . . . er, suburban, but at least they'll let us draw them as fish." "Yeah, Jolie might even complain that we made her lips too small . . ." "Shut up, Phil."

All humor aside (and if that amused even one of you, it's more than Shark Tale would do), Shark Tale is a pretty pathetic and transparent tale of Black America set under the sea. The saddest part of this incorporation is that it lacks all of the genuine social commentary that could set it apart from a decent satire or an original urban comedy. Instead, in attempting to be a "family friendly" movie, Shark Tale incorporates and reinforces much of the worst stereotypes in American Ethnic relations today.

Enter Oscar, your slacker-type, minimum wage stereotype. He is the type of lazy fish that Conservatives like to characterize all urban fish as. He is a barely-working grunt, showing up late to his job at the Whale Wash. Like other urban fish, he has maxed out his credit to loan sharks and bookies on ridiculous get-rich-quick schemes because, as any Conservative will tell you, those urban fish can't be trusted to use credit responsibly. And they're always dreaming of something better. I wonder why they do that? Oscar, being a male urban fish, is completely oblivious to the affections of Angie, another urban fish working at the Whale Wash in an administrative capacity.

The Reef, the urban area where Oscar, Angie and others live, is plagued by sharks, who in this incarnation take the stereotypical role of the Italian-descended Americans. Naturally, then, the sharks are all into organized crime, led by Don Lino, who is trying to teach his pacifistic shark son Lenny how to be ruthless enough to run the racket on the Reef. When the Don's other (more vicious) son is killed in an accident while chasing Oscar, Oscar and Lenny become buddies (in a real Eddie Murphy/Judge Rienhold way). Oscar becomes the celebrity of the Reef, Lenny gets to go into hiding and Don Lino, believing his sons have been killed, goes off with murderous rage as we all know sharks are inclined to do.

Okay, first off, the positive. I laughed once during the movie. I don't remember even what the joke was. But there was a laugh involved. And it didn't come when the vaguely homophobic reference to Lenny as a dolphin was made (hey, if the movie is going to be pretty transparently anti-Italian and anti-Bl . . . urban, why not throw in a few anti-gay pokes, too?). I laughed once.

Beyond that, there's nothing impressive about Shark Tale. Indeed, just the opposite, this is an unremarkable movie. From the outset, the animation is nowhere near as impressive as previous Pixar or Disney-Pixar movies. In their new thrust to churn out some computer-generated animated fodder at least once a year, Pixar has lost its magic for detail. In Monsters, Inc., there was a real treat seeing the film on the big screen for the impressive details. At least on the big screen, the viewer could marvel at how distinct every one of Sully's hairs were. Shark Tale lacks that level of animation detail.

Shark Tale is also disappointingly humorless. It is hard to see how even a child would find Shark Tale funny. I suppose another reason for making a "children's movie" with an "urban flavor" is that a lot of music, fashion and popular culture is taking more from popular urban culture. Little children of all ethnicities have baggy jeans and basketball jerseys and know what "bling-bling" is (though the origins of the latter term, as a poignant moment on The Wayne Brady Show illustrated, has its origins in the early portions of the previous century's monied classes). Perhaps even whites do not get off scot-free in this movie if the slow, rich whales are the metaphor for caucasians.

But there is something to the argument that Shark Tale is perpetrating dangerous stereotypes under the guise of the same old stupid "rags to riches" story. I was concerned that perhaps I was putting forward an argument that was not necessarily there, but the more I consider this movie, the more disturbing and dangerous I think it may be. Just about every subculture portrayed in Shark Tale is from a minority (save women) and none is portrayed positively. Here, in frank language, is how Shark Tale pervades and reinforces terrible ideas about how people who aren't white live:

Black Americans - characterized, or caricatured, by Oscar (voiced by Will Smith) are portrayed as lazy, poor, and not terribly cunning. Oscar is an opportunist who lies, is caught in his lie, lies some more, comes up with a crazy scheme to continue perpetrating his lies, until he is put in a situation where he is in danger and he folds like a cheap card table. And at the end of the character's journey from rags to riches, he is put back in his place, servicing the whales. The difference between Oscar at the beginning of the movie and at the end is that at the beginning he has real dreams for advancement and riches and living in the skyrise, and at the end, finding himself back at the Whale Wash as the new owner of the facility, he finds that he can dream, but only so far. In the greatest work of American Literature (my obviously unbiased opinion), Invisible Man (reviewed here!), Ellison writes the line of the Black Predicament in the business world, "Please hope him to death, and keep him running." The idea there is that the key to controlling the oppressed minorities (especially true of the economically disadvantaged) is to give them hope, but no real hope for progress. Shark Tale reinvents this idea that Ellison wrote about in 1947 through Oscar by dashing Oscar's dreams, but leaving him positive about where he is left. So, Oscar goes from the bottom of the sea, to the top of the Reef and ends up back at the bottom of the reef, but feels better about it because now he has slightly more of a stake in it. If the trend held, any Shark Tale sequel would have to, by necessity, begin with Oscar near to losing the Whale Wash (probably through his irresponsibility) and then ending with him reclaiming the small business. Shark Tale illustrates how complacent the masses of poor and predominantly Black Americans may be kept in their place by simply turning their dreams of equality into minority partners in the worst possible businesses in America. And that suits such ill-educated and lazy people anyway, if Shark Tale is any indication.

Women - fare no better in Shark Tale as characterized by three personas: Angie, Lola, and Katie Current. Angie (Zellweger) is intelligent but refuses to express herself. Indeed, she is characterized as demure, subservient (or at the very least deferential) to Oscar in all things and lacking in confidence in her own abilities and beauty. She has a crush on Oscar, wants to help him out, but only expresses her true love for him through violent, irrational outbursts when she has pushed him away. Moreover, her affections for Oscar compel her to remain silent when she learns of his duplicities rather than exposing him. Men, rejoice! Women won't turn you in if you pay them lip service from time to time. Show them the least amount of affection and they'll trail you like puppies. Except, that is, for the type like Lola (Angelina Jolie). Lola is a golddigger type explicitly (through music) characterized as a woman who is only after money. Of course, an urban fish like Oscar just sees good tail and will go after it, never thinking of the consequences. And then there's the annoying cameos by Katie Currant (Katie Couric), who is pushy and invasive as the lead reporter on the Reef. If her real shows are like the parody here, one wonders who watches her shows. So, to clarify, women in Shark Tale are either deferential, spineless and starved for attention or emotionless predators hungry for men's money or just plain annoying.

Italian-Americans - are simply brutish mobsters. The sharks in Shark Tale are the parody of Americans of Italian decent. Allow me to preface this by saying my view on the Italian-American Defamation League's problems with The Sopranos was an overreaction: "The Sopranos" never tried to characterize all Italian-Americans as gangsters, merely exploring that sect of Americans of Italian decent who happen to be mobsters and how they operate. Conversely, Shark Tale characterizes all sharks as mobsters (save Lenny, who is something of a pouf). Robert De Niro voices Don Lino and helps to perpetrate the stereotype of Italians as ruthless, family-loving mobsters who will terrorize those who they can hold any sort of power over, including their own assistants (characterized by an octopus in Shark Tale). The sharks solve their problems through asserting dominance and threats, respecting only strength and having a fiery temper.

Homosexuals - might be a bit of a stretch in Shark Tale, but Lenny (Jack Black) is played as an effeminate shark who disguises himself as a dolphin to leave the shark mob. The most obvious implication is that the pacifistic Lenny is somehow less of a man, a common stereotype about gays that the rabid homophobics never seem to spread when confronted with the athletic (and clearly masculine) sect of gays who place an emphasis on bodybuilding and fitness. Lenny is a caricature with a faint lisp, enthusiasm for dressing up and also happens to be an unmanly vegetarian.

Jews - what is far less opaque is the stereotype of Jews in Shark Tale. Since well before the time of Shakespeare, Jews have been characterized as the business-people, the money lenders, the people who are good with money and seem to have the financial advantage over everyone else. Martin Scorsese plays the pufferfish Sykes who is both an agent and a money lender. He is the common link between Don Lino and Oscar, the middleman between the Reef and the Mob. Which, if we've learned anything from the ethnic stereotypes in Shark Tale is appropriate. After all, who better to deal with the money of two vastly disparate groups as Blacks and Italians than a Jew?

And the final nail in the ethnic culture might well be Sykes' assistants. Two Rastafarian jellyfish who act as muscle for the Jewish accountant. Well, at least Shark Tale was smart enough to avoid any allegations of promoting hate crimes. After all, if a little urban fish is assaulted by Jamaican Immigrant jellyfish, it's not really a hate crime. It's "those people" doing it to themselves. And popular culture seems to have little problem with depictions of black on black crime, er, make that "urban on urban violence."

Shame on Shark Tale and those involved with it for their lack of foresight and transparent poor depictions of so many different ethnicities. For some of us, positive relations between all peoples - regardless of color, gender, sexuality or country of origin - is more than some fish story.

For other animated Dreamworks films, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Hoodwinked Too! Hood Vs. Evil
Shrek Forever After
Hoodwinked!
Shrek

1.5/10

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

© 2012, 2007, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Not The Envy Of Many, Jack Black And Ben Stiller Flop In This Mediocre "Comedy"

The Good: Moments of humor
The Bad: One-note concept, Nothing extraordinary on the acting or character fronts, Light on DVD extras
The Basics: Short, populated by unenthusiastic or unreal performances and failing to explore genuinely (or sensibly) the titled emotion, Envy strikes out as largely unfunny.


It is only reason that makes watching Envy respect Steve Carell less instead of finding myself less impressed with Ben Stiller. I'm still looking into it, of course, but I suspect that Steve Carell was not such a big name back in 2004 when Envy was released to suggest that Ben Stiller essentially is playing Carell playing his part in the movie. But lacking that, it is hard not to suggest that Carell might have modeled much of his delivery off Stiller as throughout the film I was bugged by the familiarity of Stiller's performance up until the moment I realized that Stiller was acting just like Steve Carell. But no, I don't retroactively hate either Stiller or Carell for the weird synchronisity between their derivative deliveries in this and other works.

That said, what might well have gotten me more excited about Envy before I sat down and watched it was that Barry Levinson directed it. He is a decent director and writer and he directed Envy, a Jack Black/Ben Stiller vehicle which was easily one of the most misnamed films of the last ten years. Envy is not really about that and I watched the movie because it is one of my wife's favorite movies (while I was not a fan of the film, this is not a reason for divorce). It is, however, a film that is hard to write about because there is so little going for it that it stymies me to spend much time considering it.

Nick Vanderpark and Tim Dingman are best friends, who live opposite one another on the same street and carpool to their factory job where both appear to work in middle management. They are each happily married, with two children each and aspirations for the future. Tim is much more able to actualize his dreams as he is a down-to-earth guy slowly building his future. Nick, on the other hand, is a dreamer and he pitches one-line concepts to Tim about inventions that he wishes could exist. Witnessing a dog defecating on a lawn, Nick imagines a spray that would vaporize dog poop.

With just the idea and the name Va-poo-rize, Nick approaches the head of research and development at the company and soon they are moving forward on practical testing of the compound. Nick offers Tim the chance to invest $2000 on the project, which would make them equal partners. Tim refuses and Va-poo-rize actually works, making Nick filthy rich. Eighteen months after the successful test of Va-poo-rize, Tim is suffering as his marriage and work fall apart while Nick's mansion increases in size and sophistication and his wife decides to run for Congress (or State Senate). Tim meets a deranged extortionist, accidentally kills Nick's horse and struggles to reconcile his friendship with a man who is increasingly different from himself.

Envy isn't actually about envy, it's about regret. Actually, it is about failing to believe in one's friend. It's also about stupidly not asking the right questions in an investment opportunity and being cheesed off years later. Or perhaps it is about envy, but not a form I recognize in any rational way. After all, I tend to associate envy with the feeling of jealousy when things somewhat randomly go well for people, like the feeling one gets when the person ahead of them at the gas station wins big on the scratch off they were intending to buy. Or, I understand envy when one person is passed over for a promotion by someone equal or less capable than they are. Regret, on the other hand, is the more accurate emotion for what Tim (and Stiller) convey in this as Tim's marriage suffers from making a poor decision when Nick offers him the investment opportunity.

But the concept that Envy fails because of the friendship that is explicitly stated and portrayed only in material transfers is actually remarkably flimsy is an underexplored one. Tim does not believe in Nick. Outside of walking around saying "You're my best friend" the whole movie, there is little evidence of that other than the fact that Nick gives Tim a lot of stuff when he has the means. Tim doesn't believe in Nick and he is right that Nick (appears to) only has a name and an idea for his miracle product. The thing is, friends trust one another and they exchange information more freely than associates (at least in my experiences). Tim doesn't ask about the stage of development when Nick asks him to invest and Nick doesn't volunteer with any concrete, adult information to make him reasonably want to invest.

In other words, one of the big failures of Steve Adams' script is that neither friend actually responds to the other in a friendly way at the key moment. In fact, Tim barely seems to tolerate Nick even before the invention of Va-poo-rize and as a result, it was very difficult to get into the movie.

As well, I sat down to Envy, which was described on the DVD box as a "wacky and wild" comedy and found it to be neither. In fact, it was so straightforward it was almost droll. In the earliest parts of the movie, the only actually weird aspect was the attention Nick and Tim have to Tim's new chair and the association of office furniture with advancement in the company. Other than that, the film's leads are seldom funny. Indeed, Amy Poehler's comic timing upstages Stiller in virtually all of the scenes they share when Poehler is actually given a part.

Envy is populated by people with talent who seem unable or unwilling to use it in this endeavor. Christopher Walken is indescribably bad as the strung out J-Man. I wish I could describe it, but he seems like he is revisiting his part of Shrek from Batman Returns (reviewed here!) and then trying to make it more overtly funny. He fails. As well, Rachel Weisz is stiff and terribly un-funny in the role of Debbie, Tim's wife. In fact, "painfully stiff" might be the best way to describe her acting here.

But the real problem - outside the friendship never seeming terribly friendly - between Tim and Nick is that neither one seems terribly interesting or noteworthy to begin with. The film is predictable - the moment the dead horse is seen atop Tim's minivan, the viewer can pretty much figure it will fall off before it reaches its destination - and Tim is a boring protagonist. The film follows him rejecting Nick's idea and then dealing with the changes a year and a half later. To truly explore envy, the movie should have eroded Tim over the months in between as Nick became exponentially more wealthy. After all, it is easy to regret the decision when one sees the effect, but most of Tim's misadventures occur because of angry accidents (shooting the horse, yelling at his boss, etc.) as opposed to actual feelings of envy.

Had the film instead illustrated Tim struggling toward his goals as Nick renovated and acquired, it would be much easier to see him and the concept of envy. Instead, the leap ahead makes it seem more pointless; Tim made a bad decision, but he is not so much envious of the mind behind the decision or even its most extreme effects, he is bugged by his own regret.

The result is that Envy is ninety-nine minutes of (mostly) Ben Stiller wandering on the screen while Jack Black walks around flashy things. Stiller's Tim is not one of his most distinctive characters and is hardly a distinctive performance. As for Jack Black, this is hardly like his character in Shallow Hal which might have been another one-line concept film, but Black actually had a part in it that required him to act. Hal is shallow and deep, a womanizer, then genuine and nice. Black had some acting to do. As Nick, Black shows up, restrains himself from any yelling and delivers his lines. The part is not clever or silly or interesting and there are parts where Black delivers his lines flatly, with little actual charisma. And hey, if you're casting Jack Black and not using him for his charisma, one has to wonder why you are bothering.

And after watching Envy, I'm not sure why I bothered. At least I can envy those who choose to spend their time on another film and not on this one.

For other films featuring Ben Stiller, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Megamind
The Royal Tenenbaums
Zoolander

4/10

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

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Another Long Thinking-Persons Movie! Cradle Will Rock

The Good: Acting, Casting, Tapestry of plots, Ambiguity of message
The Bad: Moments of pacing (density)
The Basics: Another film that ought to have been contending for greater things in 1999, Cradle Will Rock is a character-driven tapestry of 1930s U.S.


Cradle Will Rock is potentially one of the greatest robberies in film history. No, it does not steal from other people's works or such, but in the races to win awards and receive recognition and an audience, it most certainly was robbed. It's ironic, considering the film is often about people standing up and acknowledging truths and greatness, that so few people stand up to praise the movie.

The film has a large scope and as such it often loses people, especially those who wish to see a movie without having to concentrate on it. The plots and characters weave around and play off each other. Nelson Rockefeller has chosen to have Diego Rivera paint the mural in the lobby of Rockefeller Center, which becomes problematic as the leftist artist incorporates images such as Lenin and syphilis into the work. WPA worker Hazel Huffman has rallied several anti-Communist artists to aid her in testifying against the WPA. One such artist is vaudeville ventriloquist Tommy Crickshaw, whose character arc is quite gripping. Largely the film plays around with Aldo Silvano and Olive Stanton, who are playing in a WPA play called "Cradle Will Rock," which is on the importance of Unions in America. Set against the play is a whole plot of steel tycoon Gray Mathers who is supplying Mussolini with steel.

The film is truly a tapestry and without knowing - or being able to appreciate - that, the viewer is lost. It's a complex film, especially as it says one thing and does another. For example, the play Cradle Will Rock is attempting to show the benefits of a union while the events surrounding the play lead to the Actor's Guild refusing to let the play be performed. If anything, the film is making the most potent argument about Unions ever: that they have their time and place, but their application is not universally beneficial to those who are a part of it. It's a story set in the 1930s, illustrating a concept that took much longer to be realized.

The acting is wonderful. All of the players get into their parts and portray the people they represent. Hank Azaria is wonderful as the delusional Marc Blitzstein, who writes Cradle Will Rock in the film. Harris Yulin gives a great performance and the briefly-seen Congressman Dies. All of the usual suspects: John Cusak, Joan Cusak, Philip Baker Hall, Vanessa Redgrave, Ruben Blades, John Turturro, and Emily Watson give their high caliber performance meeting or exceeding our expectations for their work. The true acting genius comes in the unlikely package of Bill Murray. In the surprise of the film, Bill Murray plays Tommy Crickshaw with a wonderful mix of self-loathing, abandonment and neediness. His character has surprising depth and I never thought I'd be saying he's the man to watch in a film with such talented actors as this.

While the film is not perfect, Cradle Will Rock comes quite close. Outside some historical references that are obscure, the film has moments where its purpose is unclear and it slows the pace. There are much worse uses of your time than this film and if you have children, I highly recommend this as an intelligent, engaging film. There are too few these days.

I must say, I'm impressed by the caliber of work Tim Robbins puts forth writing and directing Cradle Will Rock. This film was vastly underrated in a year of great films, most of which were overlooked.

For other powerful dramas, please visit my reviews of:
Magnolia
The Social Network
The Mission

8.5/10

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

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Not Terrible For Children, How To Train Your Dragon Is Essentially Avatar For Kids.

The Good: Decent animation, Fun
The Bad: Very simple, Predictable
The Basics: A good, but not wonderful, animated film, How To Train Your Dragon is a fun kid's movie.


One of the few problems with being a discriminating reviewer is that readers tend to want strong opinions on things. They want a movie to be the greatest thing the reviewer has ever seen or the worst piece of trash that they can easily avoid. But being a discriminating reviewer with solid standards often means that an honest review of a movie is going to classify a film in the big, nebulous range that is "average." So few movies are outright terrible and so few are the true masterpieces we want them to be. As a result, it's easy to skip over reviews that honestly evaluate films and consider them average because they don't fall to the extremes. Sadly, that is where I find myself after taking in the new Dreamworks film How To Train Your Dragon. The movie isn't great, but it's not horrible. It is very average.

One of the nice things about being known in my community as a reviewer and being a friend of the local library is that when the library got its film license, they got onto a list that gets them preview screenings at a nearby theater from time to time. As a result, I scored early passes to How To Train Your Dragon and I found myself amid a quintillion of excited children for a screening (those who know me know this is a fate usually reserved for when I have done something terribly wrong in life as I loathe children, especially at the movies). How To Train Your Dragon is based upon a book series by the same name and I guess in anticipation of the movie's release, the library had had a reading group with the kids. I, however, have not read any of the books in this series and so this is a very pure review of the movie only. It is also worth noting that the kids who had read the book split pretty evenly down the lines of those who loved the film vs. those who were annoyed by how little it stuck to the book in places. Again, I cannot speak to that, so the movie . . .

Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III a smart aleck in the Viking community where he is growing up as the son of Chief Stoick The Vast. Hiccup is awkward and his father wants him to man up by putting him in dragon combat with the other youth. This goes generally disastrously for Hiccup and his peers, though Astrid - a girl Hiccup is smitten with - fares fairly well. While out exploring Berk one day, Hiccup encounters the ultra-rare Night Fury dragon, who Hiccup befriends. Instead of fighting the dragons, Hiccup learns to train his, Toothless.

In the process of training Toothless, Hiccup begins to grow into his own as a leader, which makes him more attractive to Astrid. This makes Snotlout deeply jealous and while Hiccup and his friends begin training dragons, as opposed to fighting them, Stoick and Gobber lead the Vikings on a rampage against the dragons. Hiccup and his friends must band together to stop the extinction of both the dragons and the Vikings.

How To Train Your Dragon is an animated film by Dreamworks and it follows more in the line of films geared toward the younger audience that appreciates the kid-becomes-hero story as opposed to something like Shrek Forever After (reviewed here!), which has a lot of jokes for adults (even if it was the same joke over and over again). Audiences are likely to be underwhelmed by this animated film, which is clearly the start of a franchise, because of the formulaic plot which has remarkable similarities to the plot of Avatar (reviewed here!). Unlike that animated film, How To Train Your Dragon is clearly supposed to be animated and characters move in a world with physics that follow animated movie laws as opposed to being painfully real. So, while the animated spectacle of soaring with the dragons is pretty cool, not even the children flinched at characters getting knocked around by dragons; the violence is very cartoonish and they will have likely seen similar violence even in commercials.

But, in many ways, this is a very obvious movie. The character development is as formulaic as the plot and it includes the obvious romantic subplot between Hiccup and Astrid, which is tested by the conflicts in the plot. This is a very typical "hero in the process of becoming" and another in a long strain of children's movies whereby the smart, geeky and picked-on youth are encouraged that they can develop into good people through use of their brains. The villains are over-the-top and thus more laughable than truly menacing and as a result, How To Train Your Dragon does a good job at presenting the basic morality play most parents want to see in a children's movie.

On the plus side, the movie is entertaining and it does a good job of showing that brains can beat out brawn and that being different is not necessarily a bad thing (well, unless you smell real bad). And there is a whole concept of "treat animals well" which is always a welcome theme in movies designed for children, so there is that as well. And the animation is good: the colors are bright and there is a decent sense of movement.

As well, the voice acting is good. Jay Baruchel (who seems to be having a good month) leads the cast as Hiccup and he manages to sound appropriately geeky until the moments he needs to sound credibly in charge. America Ferrera stands out in How To Train Your Dragon for her vocal spunk and she steals her scenes as Astrid. Everyone else is good, but they fall within the expected range of voice actors in a big-budget Hollywood film.

Ultimately, I give this a soft recommend because it was fun and I had a good time watching it, but there were no real surprises. This is a good popcorn kid's movie, but it's not one that has much in the way of wit or enduring greatness to it and one wonders if making a franchise of it is truly a good idea; there's not much this one didn't already do.

For other animated film reviews, please be sure to check out:
Little Nemo: Adventures In Slumberland
The Sword In The Stone
Despicable Me

6/10

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

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




| | |