Two Hours Of Boredom For Ten Minutes Of Cleverness: I'm Not On The Atonement Bandwagon!

The Good: Moments of clever concept at the end, Costumes, DVD extras
The Bad: Boring, Not romantic, Unlikable characters, Dull plot, Pacing, Uninspired acting
The Basics: Despite the hype, Atonement is a long, boring film that takes too long to get to its initiating incident and too long after to have a point.


My mother and I have very different taste in virtually everything. Thus, it is odd enough when she recommends something to me and even odder when what she recommends is actually something I find myself enjoying. So, for example, she recently highly recommended Sara Bareilles' Little Voice (reviewed here!) and I found that to be far too derivative for my liking. So, when she recommended Atonement and told me how popular it was, I was somewhat skeptical. Having sat through it and several of the bonus features, I'm thinking it was a mistake to listen to my mom on this and possibly anything ever again.

Atonement has been receiving a lot of acclaim for its cinematography and direction and to some extent, I can see why; there are parts of the film that look good. But at the end of the day, Joe Wright has created a boring film that stretches on for two hours before creating a moment that is actually interesting; long after the viewer has stopped caring. It is not particularly inspired and the result of the film is a long way to go for little payoff.

Cecilia Tallis and Robbie Turner are living in the manors in the British countryside where they are spied upon by a thirteen year-old, Briony, who is infatuated with Robbie. After intercepting a love note between Cecilia and Robbie and catching them in the study having sex, Briony is jealous of her older sister and heartbroken. When visitors come to the manor and one of them is assaulted, Briony implicates Robbie and he is carted away. When the war comes, Robbie gets out of jail to serve in France and both Cecilia and Briony end up there as nurses. Briony carries the guilt of having wrongfully accused Robbie, given how his life is radically altered as a result and she seeks to right her wrongs.

There are three big problems with Atonement. The first is, it is boring. The whole theme of atonement only comes up in the last few minutes of the film and it fits in as something of an explanation for the pointless and painful two hours that precede it. Outside that, this is a long film that feels long and it is irksome in its style. Specifically, multiple incidents are repeated both from Briony's perspective and the perspective of Robbie and Cecilia. So when the film is insufferable, the scene is repeated with the 13 year-old watching and taking a different thing from the incident.

I'm sorry, any concept of Joe Wright being considered a great director ought to be gutted by the continual bland shots of the plain 13 year-old Briony that he cuts to. Actress Saoirse Ronan has a blank stare that is boring to look at, dulled by repetition, made absolutely insipid in its frequency. Wright's continued use of simply flashing her dimwitted stare up on screen is a poor use of the medium and one might argue he ought to lose his Screen Director's Guild (is that the Director's union?) card for mocking the moviegoing public with this pathetic attempt at art house style in a mainstream release. In all seriousness, his use of repetition, specifically of cutting to Ronan's blank stare, makes an already slow film insufferable.

Second, despite being billed as a great romantic epic, Atonement is not terribly romantic at all. There are repeated images of a typewriter typing out one of the least romantic words to describe female anatomy (no, the "c word" was never considered particularly flattering, much less romantic!) and the relationship between Cecilia and Robbie is rather common and dull.

It's not romantic, either. Wow, they have sex in a library. They sit at a dinner table and make moon eyes at one another. Briony witnesses Robbie break something of Cecilia's, which sends her into a fountain to recover its pieces. I understand this film is based on a book - this is NOT a review of the book! - and one hopes only that the romance was built up better there because in the film, it's a brief scene or two, a sex scene and a lot of an annoying 13 year-old looking on. I think a general rule for "great adult romance" would have to be, "not witnessed by an annoying and jealous 13 year-old."

Third, none of the characters are likable or pop as memorable or compelling. Call me jaded, but it's hard to feel especially bad for any of the characters. Briony is unlikable and a brat, Cecilia is unmemorable (though she looks good - yea green satin dress!), and Robbie is either too stupid to adequately defend himself or too dimwitted to make it in the world. Seeing the manors these people live in it is improbable that they do not have money. How Robbie fails to beat the rap for a crime he did not commit (Briony's testimony or not) makes one wonder what the authors think about the British judicial system.

Moreover, as a character study, there is something to be said about the failure to realistically address the other perspective. Atonement is focused on Briony's sense of guilt over wrongfully accusing a man of victimizing a child. This torments her for much of her life, especially when she is 18 during World War II. Almost entirely neglected is the emotional impact upon the jerk who actually did victimize the girl. That man goes on just fine, it appears. On his conscience ought to be both the victimization and the sense of guilt over what happens to Robbie when he gets away with it.

My point here is that the movie feels unbalanced in that it focuses on very limited consequences of the lie without looking at the whole range of it. In this way, Atonement often sacrifices message and moral for style. This is a film that sells itself as substantial, but it is fluff dressed up nicely. And the costumes are nice, so this is a decent point; the film's costuming is pretty incredibly, most notably the green dress Keira Knightley wears as Cecilia on the fateful night.

Yes, this is another Keira Knightley vehicle and truth be told, I'm not her biggest fan. For sure, I can see why she is popular. She is popular and successful now for EXACTLY the same reasons a Winona Ryder was a decade ago. She fills the exact niche and when she hits a certain age, she'll disappear just like Ryder. Until then, though, I'm not sure Atonement is her best work. Not by a longshot. There is no sense of spunk, no sense of life that she brings to Cecilia. Instead, I spent much of the film watching her and wondering when she was going to do anything remotely interesting. I would like to blame the script for that, but there is nothing Knightley brings to the role that steps outside the limitations of the script for her.

Similarly, none of the actresses who play Briony wowed me until the stately Vanessa Redgrave arrived for her cameo near the end. James McAvoy showed none of the brilliance I saw in him in The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe (reviewed here!). In fact, it was only looking at the IMDB to see what else he had been in that reminded me I had seen him in something else! Here he is bland, British and dull in ways that make him a poor protagonist for the bulk of the film. There is nothing that makes his Robbie distinct. Instead, the film feels very generic, like "Period Romance Story #15."

Except, again, this is hardly a romantic movie. Instead, I kept waiting for the film to go somewhere and by the time it did, I certainly did not care. On DVD, there are deleted scenes which add nothing of significance to the film, previews, a commentary track and a few behind-the-scenes featurettes. They are interesting and adequate for those who liked the movie, but none of them made me enjoy this sleeper any more than I already hadn't.

I am sure there are people who would like this film; die hard romantics who will accept anything with sex as romance. But for those looking for real love and romantic epics, this film is just a long period piece that is bound to disappoint.

For other works with Saoirse Ronan, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Hanna
The Secret World Of Arietty
Death Defying Acts

3/10

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

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

Music Soothes The Savage Breast In The Soloist

The Good: Amazing acting, Great direction, Decent story, Interesting character development
The Bad: Difficult to watch
The Basics: When Steve Lopez hears Nathaniel Ayers playing music, he becomes intrigued by the street-dwelling man's predicament and works to change his life.


As I consider my review of The Soloist, I find myself wondering if Steve Lopez, the reporter upon whom The Soloist is based, is sitting trolling the internet on the eve of its theatrical release, reading reviews. On the off chance that he is, I shall flatter myself for a moment with the notion that he has stumbled upon this one and take the opportunity to say "thank you." Thank you, Steve Lopez, for seeing the world and trying to make a difference in it. Thank you for writing about your story and being successful enough at it to create a template for a film that might raise awareness about real social problems as well as tell a life story of one of the millions of extraordinary unsung humans on this planet.

The Soloist is based upon Steve Lopez's book, adapted for screen by Susannah Grant, and directed by Joe Wright. The film is an obvious contender for award season next year as it deals with both mental health issues and tells an interesting character-driven story. Actually, The Soloist is a decent love story with two people who do not have a romantic relationship and Wright captures both the love Nathaniel Anthony Ayers Jr. has for music and the love Lopez has for humanity as he reconnects with it. The Soloist is remarkably direct, largely satisfying and it is one of the best motion pictures of 2009.

Steve Lopez is out cycling one night and by dawn, he finds himself falling face first off his cycle onto the pavement and damaging himself. As a writer for the Los Angeles Times, he writes about it in his column and as he mopes back to functionality, he finds himself one day in a park listening to music. The music is being played by Nathaniel Ayers, a man who is down on his luck and playing a violin that is down to two strings. But Lopez is fascinated by this man, especially when in his strange ramble, he mentions attending Juliard. A quick factcheck on Lopez's part determines that Ayers attended Juliard, but never graduated.

Intrigued by what knocked Ayers off course, Lopez befriends the homeless man and is able to provide him - through one of his readers - with a cello and contacts who will aid Ayers. As the Los Angeles Times downsizes, Lopez explores the world of homeless Los Angeles and he attempts to assist Ayers. Soon, though, it becomes apparent to Lopez that Ayers is in greater need than he is qualified to help and when he attempts to intervene in Nathanial's life, he realizes he might be in over his head.

Nathaniel Ayers may or may not be a paranoid schizophrenic; The Soloist leaves that undefined. What The Soloist does quite well is tell a story and keep the viewer engaged. Indeed, I have not been this engaged in a musically-based drama since The Red Violin (reviewed here!). In that film, the drama lay in the travels of a single instrument, in The Soloist, the action is almost entirely explored through quiet conversations and softly played pieces involving two men who connect through one's ability to play music and another man's growing reconnection with the important aspects of life and love.

What remains important throughout the film is not the music so much as the mystery of Nathaniel Ayers. Ayers enters the film as a clearly disturbed mind and how and why he ended up that way when all bets indicated he would be the next best thing in the classical music world is an intriguing puzzle. Clues to Ayers's history and illness are doled out whenever the film slows down in the form of interviews between Lopez and Ayers's sister, Jennifer. As well, flashbacks introduce the more cognizant moments in Nathanial's past where he is able to piece together significant moments with his mother, sister, and early experiences as Juliard. In these, the viewer is given the strongest impression and clues that Ayers suffers from schizophrenia.

In these scenes, the film takes a turn toward the disturbing and troubling. Watching Ayers battle with voices only he is able to hear is frightening to watch and his lack of understanding in what is happening to him makes the scenes heartbreaking. What viewers might want to see is an explanation, a series of events that lead Ayers to a mental collapse, but we are afforded no such catharsis; there are no incidents, no turning points, no negotiations that failed. At one point in the flashbacks, the world of music fails to keep the voices at bay.

This failure to connect, where timelines do not explain anything more than what was to offer comparison to what is now, is made watchable by the character journey of Steve Lopez. Lopez, recently divorced from his wife - one of the few apparent liberties the film makes with reality according to interviews with Lopez - begins to become passionate about life again through the experiences he has with Nathaniel and the LAMP Community, a homeless ghetto in Los Angeles. As Lopez discovers the world of poverty and mental illness that is cramping the streets of Los Angeles, he awakens to the idea that helping Nathaniel and the denizens of the community, he will better himself in a way that is not simply self-serving. Watching him go from a disconnected jerk to a man who truly loves someone is amazing.

Part of this is done through simple movie magic. Director Joe Wright takes a cue from Across The Universe (reviewed here!) and Fantasia (reviewed here!) and plays with the idea of making music a visual experience. Therefore, there a moments in The Soloist when Lopez simply listens to Ayers play and he envisions the music. The first time this happens, it appears to be a pointless visual bit involving birds, but when one understands the connection between the music and the imagery it quickly becomes apparent what Wright is doing.

The Soloist is also incredibly strong on the acting front. Jamie Foxx leads a cast that includes Catherine Keener, Stephen Root, and Lisa Gay Hamilton. Foxx is predictably brilliant in the role of Ayers and he continues the strong trend he has for picking work that allows him to explore his full range as an actor. In this he is amazing in the speed of his dialogue and in the intensity of his body language. Credit ought to be given to Justin Martin, who plays the younger incarnations of Ayers for holding his own and keeping the feel of the character alive.

But the surprise for most people will be Robert Downey Jr. In this film, Downey exhibits all of the talent that he insinuates in other roles where he is simply well cast and stuck into a niche. In this, Downey Jr. is not simply a mellow, slightly understated, sarcastic man who delivers great wisdom. As Lopez, Robert Downey Jr. is a man on an emotional journey and the way his eyes change from dead and bored to engaged as the film progresses is a testament to his acting.

Not quite a perfect film, The Soloist lacks a full measure of catharsis, but is close enough for me to give it a five-stars. The pacing is a little off at a few moments, but outside that, it is the dramatic powerhouse one hopes is remembered around award time.

For other works with Catherine Keener, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Cyrus
Where The Wild Things Are
Capote

9.5/10

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

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

Waiting For The Potential, Hanna Is A Solid Adventure!

The Good: Interesting idea, Decent acting, Moments of character
The Bad: Pacing irregularities, Telegraphing soundtrack, Somewhat predictable.
The Basics: Hanna is a graphic, intriguing chase movie that is a little too predictable to be truly thrilling.


Hanna is one of those movies that came out earlier in the year that I missed, but did not actually feel like I missed. While the idea of it intrigued me, I did not feel like I missed it because the previews were so utterly revealing. With it out now on DVD, though, I felt like it was time to sit and watch it. Hanna seems to have a pretty simple and direct premise and my thought was that the way it could impress me would be to actually develop the characters so it was not just another chase film that was cut with the best parts in the trailer.

Hanna does have a bit more depth than I suspected, but it was pretty much what I expected. Despite the meeting Hanna has with the free and loose family and the reckless moments she shares with boys in Spain, the movie is pretty much a chase with narrowing focus. When it isn't a fast-paced chase across Europe, Hanna is a surprisingly slow character story that focuses on Hanna being amazed by the commonplace elements she has only heard of in stories.

Hanna is raised in seclusion by Erik, taught to hunt, shoot, fight and survive under any circumstances. Amazed by such things as airplanes, Hanna has been trained to be an incredible soldier in seclusion. Feeling she is ready to face a woman who is supposed to want to kill her, she activates a homing beacon Erik provides her with and allows herself to be "rescued" by the CIA. As a former intelligence operative, Erik is sought by Marissa, though she quickly suspects Hanna is more than meets the eye. This is confirmed when Hanna requests a meeting with Marissa and the decoy who is sent in is killed by the girl.

From that point on, Hanna is on the run through the desert regions of Morocco. Marissa recalls how she, not Erik, killed Hanna's mother and set into motion the hunt that seems to suggest that she is part of an experiment. Hanna meets up with Sophie and her family while on the run as Marissa hires locals to find the girl. As they cut a swath of violence into Spain and across Europe, Erik moves in for a rendezvous in Germany. Hanna tries to normalize with Sophie and understand the test results she found in the CIA facility in Morocco as Marissa and Erik move toward a final showdown.

Director Joe Wright telegraphs Hanna with the soundtrack, eliminating any real surprise or mystery to what comes next in any given scene. For example, Erik will be walking along, clearly followed, but as he moves on, the soundtrack becomes an action theme in advance of the physical fight that comes. That guts the suspense quite a bit and leaves the viewer feeling like they are part of an emotional experiment as opposed to watching something truly engaging.

That said, much of Hanna actually is engaging. The film is extraordinarily well-acted, for example, despite having a very small cast. Eric Bana plays Erik and once again, the actor illustrates that he can provide a lot of depth for a character who is written fairly monolithically. Like his character in Star Trek (reviewed here!), Bana adds personality to Erik with faint smiles and occasionally ironic line deliveries.

Cate Blanchett is the first big surprise as Marissa. Blanchett as Marissa is far from the demur, whispy character she usually plays. Instead of playing the usual quiet, good character with a soft British accent, she plays a Texan CIA agent and her accent is flawless. She is cold, calculating and utterly ruthless as Marissa and the role is unlike any she has ever had. She nails it, though, presenting the menace of a spy in a way that makes her intriguing to watch and magnetic, regardless of how monolithic her character might be.

Much of the film, however, rests on the performance of Saoirse Ronan, who had bored me in ever role I had seen her in before now. But in Hanna she manages to be cold, distant and reserved without being boring or seeming like she couldn't act. Instead, she portrays dispassionate and well-trained to a "t," overcoming the apparent limitations of her age. In addition to playing brutal, Ronan is able to embody wonder in her eyes and facial expressions perfectly, which sells well scenes like her witnessing the washer women in the desert.

Ultimately, what slowly robs the film of higher consideration is the pacing and the lack of ability to empathize with the characters. Early on in the movie, it comes out that Hanna was a part of an experiment, though the nature of the experiment is not revealed until late in the picture. Her desire for freedom and self-determination is a decent quest, but ultimately, whether she kills Marissa, Marissa kills her or if either ends up with Erik does not matter to the viewer. The characters just fail to resonate enough to truly become invested in, especially when several of the characters abruptly fall out of the film.

Now on DVD, Hanna comes with an alternate ending, deleted scenes and a featurette on the making of one of the film's scenes. The bonus features are decent, but typical. The commentary track is mildly interesting, but does not solve the problems with the movie. Ultimately, Hanna is worth watching, but I can't see watching it more than the one time.

For other thrillers, please visit my reviews of:
The Tourist
Bound
Armored

7/10

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

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

| | |

Years Divorced From The Novel, I Enjoy The 2005 Version Of Pride And Prejudice!

The Good: Decent characters, Generally good plot, Some acting, Scenery
The Bad: Pacing issues, Chemistry problems
The Basics: Keira Knightly does a fair job as Elizabeth Bennet in an adaptation of Pride And Prejudice where Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy steals the show.


Lately, there has been a lot of time management issues between my loving wife and I. As usual, I clamor for more time to review and she continues to actually want me around, which still surprises me more than it ought to as our two year anniversary of marriage looms up on us. What it has most assuredly meant is that I spend quite a bit of time compromising. She wants to go out, I want to stay in, so we go out to the casino for a night. She wants to watch something new, I want to watch something from our permanent library, so we compromise and we watch something new (in the interest of full disclosure, last week, that compromise did work in my favor as I got in The Social Network - reviewed here! - for my permanent collection and she watched that with me). The latest of such adventures in compromise was that tonight, she left me home to work while she went out . . . and I got to write about Pride And Prejudice, the last film she had me watch that was new to me!

It has been years since I last read Jane Austen's Pride And Prejudice and so this is a very pure review of the 2005 film Pride And Prejudice and not a comparison of the book and film. That said, the basic verdict was that I enjoyed the film, which is saying something for a film with Keira Knightley as the lead. I think the only film I have truly enjoyed that she has headlined was Love Actually. But, with Pride And Prejudice, I fear I might have to reconsider her some because she was not bad as Elizabeth Bennet. Elizabeth Bennet is the principle protagonist of Pride And Prejudice, so the role is important and Knightley does all right with the role, for a change not making me think she is just filling the niche that Winona Ryder once filled.

It the sprawling estates of England in the 19th Century, the Bennets live with just enough to get by to have hired help and social clothes. But Mr. Bennet is getting on and he has five daughters and a wife to provide for, so he begins to consider what it will mean to marry them off. To that end, the Bennets go to a ball where Charles Bingley is being presented to the locals. Charles takes an immediate shine to Jane, while her sister Elizabeth finds herself put off by Bingley's taciturn friend, Mr. Darcy. Elizabeth has the rather liberal notion that marrying for love is more important than marrying for money and she is content to wait for true love to find her.

She knows that love is not in the form of her cousin, Mr. Collins, who is set to inherit the Bennet estate when Mr. Bennet dies. Elizabeth rejects Collins and has a passing fancy for the soldier, Lieutenant Wickham. Wickham shares Elizabeth's disdain for Darcy, but in learning why, Elizabeth comes to have a new respect for the wealthy Mr. Darcy. As Collins marries her best friend and Jane and Bingley flirt with a relationship, Elizabeth uncovers the truths about the socially awkward Mr. Darcy.

The fundamental problem with this version of Pride And Prejudice is that there is no real chemistry on screen between the two protagonists. Jane Austen's story follows the 19th Century paradigm for British literature, wherein the protagonist is given a romantic choice that is initially disturbing, until she encounters potential romantic interest #2 and then realizes #1 wasn't so bad. While having initially dismal chemistry works for Elizabeth and Darcy, unfortunately Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen have absolutely no real onscreen chemistry and the result is that they are hard to root for in the key moments of the film when their feelings do begin to blossom. Director Joe Wright is faced with an impossible task in making a dry set of character types set in a particularly dry period of social convention and because the two main leads - while fine on their own - have no spark between them for the times they are moving toward being together, Pride And Prejudice has a little hiccup.

That said, it is hardly an insurmountable hiccup and this cinematic rendition of Pride And Prejudice is surprisingly good. The costumes are amazing and Wright makes excellent use of the setting with beautiful presentations of England's moors and heaths and the film looks absolutely beautiful. In fact, there are moments the plot and momentum take a break in order to showcase the cinematography, but for the most part, Pride And Prejudice works wonderfully on a visual level.

The characters are archetypes, but when one considers that works like Pride And Prejudice pioneered that archetype, it becomes forgivable for the film to have characters speak their themes and have a movie which is a thinly veiled issue piece. The issue in Pride And Prejudice is largely the debate between human emotions and social conventions with the Bennets illustrating how love triumphs over social structure, to an extent. Pride And Prejudice is smart enough not to be entirely monolithic. So while social conventions keep the true love of Jane and Charles apart for an annoyingly long time, love does not solve all problems. When Lydia runs off with Wickham, it is only Darcy's vast fortune that saves the Bennets from social disgrace. But largely, Elizabeth's point on the virtues of love is well born throughout the film.

What separates this rather mainstream period film from other renditions of Pride And Prejudice is arguably the strength of the cast. Donald Sutherland lends an instant respectability to the production which is otherwise relying heavily on young talent - Knightley and the underused Jena Malone (who pops in as Lydia periodically) - and unknowns (at least to U.S. audiences) in the form of Matthew Macfadyen (Darcy) and Simon Woods (Bingley). While Dame Judy Dench is in the movie, her appearance is so late in it that most of the audience will have made up their mind about the quality of the production by that time.

Keira Knightley does a stupendous job as Elizabeth. For the first time in many, many films that she has appeared in, one does not feel like she is either treading in the wheel ruts of Winona Ryder, nor simply trying to capitalize on her elfin good looks. No, here she plays delighted off Rosamund Pike and sharp-tongued off Macfadyen. Her strength in the scenes where she rejects Mr. Collins illustrates more range than she is given in any other film I have seen her in. She is able to bring a playful quality to the scenes that require Elizabeth to be girlish and a force of will to the scenes where she has forced social interactions and Knightley delivers the full spectrum expertly.

It is Matthew Macfadyen, however, who steals every scene he is in and his ability to play standoffish is great. He is appropriately stiff and he has a decidedly regal demeanor which characterizes Darcy quite well. His performance was enough to make me want to find what other works he had been in so I could determine if this was a fluke performance or if he is just a vastly underutilized talent in cinema today.

On DVD, Pride & Prejudice includes four featurettes and a commentary track. The four featurettes focus mostly on the making of the film as well as translating the Jane Austen novel into the film. The featurettes and commentary track are pretty much the industry standards and they are pretty good.

Ultimately, Pride And Prejudice is a wonderful period drama that is a little slow, but has characters and witty dialogue smart enough to want to trudge through the slow times with. For those looking for a wonderful way to kill an evening and a good way to get into the classics - without picking up an actual book - this is good for that was well.

For other period pieces, please check out my reviews of:
Schindler's List
The Piano
Unforgiven

7/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for an organized listing!

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



| | |