Summer Blockbuster Season’s Big Legitimate Hit Is Made With Man Of Steel!

The Good: Character, Most of the performances, Special effects
The Bad: Plot progression is painfully predictable.
The Basics: A complete reboot of Superman, Man Of Steel presents a more angsty version of Clark Kent and Kal-El and a bigger threat to Earth in his first real adventure.


I am not a fan of Superman. The character spent decades as a monolithic ideal who evolved from an ultra-powerful man who helped cats out of trees into a blandly virtuous, virtually invincible fighter for peace, justice, the “American Way” and the protection of Earth. In recent years, the Superman comic books have moved away from the absolutism that defined the character, but he’s not been placed in a situation like Wonder Woman where to save the world from an unstoppable killing machine, a human being has to die, like Wonder Woman did in The OMAC Project (reviewed here!). So, the idea of the new reboot of the Superman cinematic franchise with Man Of Steel had no inherent draw to me and, if anything, I was biased against it.

First, I felt bad for Bryan Singer and Brandon Routh. For all of the problems with Superman Returns (reviewed here!), Routh’s performance was not the reason the film failed. Routh took the blame much like Eric Bana did for Hulk (reviewed here!). And after seeing Immortals (reviewed here!), I was not convinced Henry Cavill was the one to take up the role of Clark Kent/Superman. But, with Man Of Steel he lands it and the film works becoming a surprisingly compelling super hero film that ups the stakes for the DC (cinematic) universe and gives viewers a smarter superhero film than they have seen in some time.

As an environmental calamity sweeps over the ancient planet Krypton, the infamous General Zod seizes the opportunity for a political coup. Opposing his political action, but agreeing with his desire to save the Kryptonian people, the scientist, Jor-El, makes a final bid to save the genetic coding of the planned Kryptonians. Sending his newborn son, Kal-El - the first naturally born Kryptonian in generations - off-planet, Jor-El seeks to save the Kryptonian genome. With his political revolution ending in failure, Zod and his forces are sentenced to a sleep prison in the phantom zone where they survive the destruction of Krypton.

Meanwhile, on Earth Kal-El grows up as the son of Jonathan and Martha Kent. Raised to be virtuous, kind, and giving, Jonathan also raised his adopted son to be cautious and not reveal his extraordinary abilities – like amazing strength and speed. Despite some incidents, like saving a bus load of children from an accident as a youth, Clark Kent (as Kal-El goes by in his life “passing” as a human) gets by. In his young adulthood, though, he begins to feel isolated and he starts to avoid people in order to not have his incredible abilities discovered. His journey of self discovery brings him to an abandoned craft frozen beneath a glacier that was also from Krypton. There, under the tutalege of a holographic version of his father he learns of his Kryptonian heritage.

In exploring his abilities, Kal-El comes to the attention of the U.S. military and Lois Lane, intrepid reporter from Metropolis. The curiosity about his nature, though, quickly is trumped when an alien invasion force arrives. Led by General Zod, Jor-El’s enemy, the Kryptonian force comes for Kal-El and when Zod’s forces begin laying waste to Earth, Kal-El decides to step up and become humanity’s savior.

Having recently watched the 1970’s Superman (reviewed here!), it is worth noting that Man Of Steel distances itself well from that vision of Superman. Man Of Steel is darker and works to fit Clark Kent into more of a real world than a fantastic or cinematic rendition of our world (though everyone looks Hollywood beautiful in Man Of Steel). Thus, Man Of Steel sacrifices much of the charm of Christopher Reeves’s Superman in favor of an outsider protagonist who is caught between using his powers to help people and struggling to avoid persecution that his alien nature will bring from the xenophobic and fearful humans (who could desperately use his help).

The biggest tone change is the lack of humor in Man Of Steel. This Clark Kent is not an “aww shucks” farm boy, he’s a guy who has methodically covered his tracks to avoid making a splash until normal human incident after normal human incident conspires to reveal his true nature (by him using his extraordinary and inhuman abilities to help other people). Man Of Steel has a few amusing lines, but for the most part, it is a much more stark, character-driven piece with a protagonist who is far more consciously created as an outsider than prior renditions (at least cinematically) of Superman have been. This, naturally, is expected of the director of Watchmen (reviewed here!) and Zack Snyder’s trend for delivering characters who face overwhelming odds and making smarter-than-average super hero films remains unchallenged.

Significant in Man Of Steel is the tone. The set-up for Clark Kent and coming to terms with his identity as Kal-El is appropriately belabored and conflicted, drawn out until General Zod returns to the narrative. But when Zod arrives at Earth, the film takes a somewhat troubling turn toward the familiar. Man Of Steel was delayed from a planned release last year and while the studio’s reason might be that they wanted to get the effects (especially 3-D conversion) right, it is not long into Zod’s reign of terror that loyal viewers of DC-based films will suspect that they did not want viewers to start noting the plot comparisons (the whole “under siege” plot) with The Dark Knight Rises (reviewed here!). And as one of the few fans of the cinematic Green Lantern (reviewed here!), the whole DC Universe problem with Man Of Steel is certainly the lack of presence of the space cops of the galaxy. After all, prior incarnations which had Clark Kent as the sole surviving Kryptonian did not exactly warrant the presence of the interstellar police force, but in Man Of Steel, Zod and his allies come in force with an invasion plan and weapons which seem like they would fall pretty safely under the purview of the Green Lantern Corps . . .

. . . so, Man Of Steel is plotted like a super hero origin story. That’s fine, it is what it is. The character front has Man Of Steel making a fresh take on the familiar elements of the Superman story and it makes Kal-El’s alien nature – something which the graphic novels have only focused on in the past few decades as a source of conflict with the more refined version of Lex Luthor – an issue that is presented in an unfortunately realistic way. Yes, human beings are not the most accepting race and Jonathan Kent is proven right for urging his son to be cautious in his exposing himself to humans. Human xenophobia and fear is a predominate theme in Man Of Steel (much like fear was in Batman Begins) and writers David S. Goyer and Christopher Nolan do a decent job of making the film about more than just an alien with incredible abilities and, instead, about broader themes about the state of humanity and how we treat one another. Fortunately, Clark Kent’s ethics prevent him from simply imposing growth on our backwards planet – a point which is driven home when General Zod and his soldiers come to extort humanity and destroy the masses who cannot reasonably stand in his way.

On the acting front, I wanted to start my commentary of Man Of Steel with the note that my longstanding disdain of Russell Crowe’s narrow acting range does not prevent me from openly acknowledging that he takes the role of Jor-El (who comparatively has exceptionally little screentime) and makes him empathetic and seem like a father deeply torn between having the life he wants (with his family) and trying to protect his son and his planet. Crowe is decent for the part of Jor-El and his performance makes the mentoring that Jor-El provides his son seem like more than banal exposition or bland moralizing and actually seem inspiring.

The supporting cast in Man Of Steel is fleshed out well. Like Crowe, Kevin Costner is given the role of Jonathan Kent, which could have been presented as campy or over-the-top and Costner delivers subtle and restrained. Michael Shannon’s General Zod is powerful in voice and posture, even if the character is incredibly monolithic and utterly unsympathetic and Richard Schiff and Christopher Meloni make their roles as Dr. Emil Hamilton and Colonel Hardy seem like quite a bit more than background characters. Schiff and Meloni embody their characters in such a way that makes them seem like their entire existence does not revolve around Kal-El, like they were living in a world before his appearance and they have other things going on besides him and the plot of Man Of Steel. I like the sense that such comparatively minor characters have an identity that is not simply built around the one story. Laurence Fishburne is characteristically great as Lois Lane’s boss at The Daily Planet, Perry White.

That brings us to Amy Adams. Adams plays Lois Lane in Man Of Steel and she brings all the pluck and determination fans of the Superman franchise would expect from Lois Lane. More importantly, Adams has great on-screen chemistry with the film’s star Henry Cavill.

Henry Cavill is more than just a pair of toned pectoral muscles and abs that won’t quit as Kal-El. Just as Christopher Reeve brought a wholesome and obviously kind disposition to his version of Clark Kent, Cavill is able to portray conflict and uncertainty well . . . then change it up plausibly with powerful and unafraid. At his best, Henry Cavill uses his eyes to emote and express the idea that Kal-El is terrified of what the people in the world will do to him, while knowing that he could change everything. His scenes opposite Michael Shannon’s Zod give him the chance to both show of physical strength and spout noble aphorisms.

On the effects front, Man Of Steel is good, but not (pardon the pun) super. I cannot speak to the 3-D, but the standard CG effects look great, though many of the attack sequences happen at a speed that does not allow the viewer to appreciate them or the consequences of them. So, for example, the shots of Kal-El’s cape when he is in his Kryptonian suits looks real (Snyder and his effects team got the effects right) and the digital models of Cavill when he is flying look like they are in the real world as well. But at the other end of the spectrum, characters moving with super speed are basically a blink of an eye and buildings fall and ships fire without enough time to truly appreciate the level of special effects devastation as the scenes are occurring. Snyder owes a great debt to Firefly (reviewed here!) for the style with the camerawork blending with the effects and at times it is nauseating, but in general the effects are decent.

Despite the issues where Man Of Steel is plotted like a familiar super hero origin story, the film feels fresher than most and is not only solidly entertaining, it makes a decent commentary on the human and alien here on Earth.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Trilogy
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Catwoman
Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 - 1997
Supergirl
Wonder Woman

7/10

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

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Graduating Into Something Mediocre: Rumor Has It . . .

The Good: A few lines near the very end
The Bad: Unextraordinary acting, Flat characters, Formulaic plot
The Basics: In a disappointing romantic comedy, Jennifer Aniston's character Sarah learns she may be the lovechild of the guy from The Graduate. Sigh.


When Harry Met Sally and Love Actually (reviewed here!) are two romantic comedies that are traditionally well-reviewed that I love. They are in my permanent collection, I watch them periodically, I enjoy them quite a bit. I mention them because lately I've seen a lot of romantic comedies or dramadies that border on romantic comedy that have been disappointing, vacuous or unsurprising and unfulfilling. I give every film, c.d. and book I encounter a fair, open-minded chance, but lately, I've been running into a lot of duds. The latest in that series is Rumor Has It . . .

Thirty years after the affair that inspired The Graduate, Sarah Huttinger is going through something of an existential crisis. While at her sister's wedding, while covering up her own engagement, Sarah learns that her grandmother, Katharine, is the woman who Mrs. Robinson was based upon and that the man who she seduced also seduced Sarah's mother. This causes Sarah to believe it is possible that Beau Burroughs might be her biological father, so she hunts him down.

Romantic comedies often hinge on chemistry. Chemistry is key to convincing an audience within ninety to 180 minutes that two people who are just coming together could be romantically involved. Hollywood creates for the audience and society the myth that relationships are not complex and can be condensed into an experience that is encapsulated within a ridiculously short period of time. Even given that common conceit, too many movies fail to engage the viewer simply based on lack of chemistry.

Rumor Has It . . . is plagued by a lack of chemistry all around. There is no palatable chemistry between Sarah and her fiancé Jeff. When we meet Beau, he is not terrible charismatic. Beau and Sarah have no discernible chemistry. And, though it was probably intended, Annie (Sarah's sister) and Scott have no chemistry either. It's pretty much impossible to sell a romantic comedy when none of the characters/actors have chemistry with one another.

I'm going to start the blame here with the actors. Mark Ruffalo plays Jeff and from his first appearance on-screen, my thought returned to the age-old problem of directors casting the Hollywood Beautiful d'jour actor of middling talent. Ruffalo fits this mold and it's unclear what his appeal is. This is the first movie I've seen Ruffalo in and he did not spark any desire to see him in any other roles. His delivery is bland, his affect is dull and he has no on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Aniston.

Conversely, Ruffalo is given the best line of the entire movie, though it comes far too late (almost at the very end) for the viewer to care and be impressed by his character for it. Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about Ruffalo's delivery, so the credit for the line has to go squarely to writer Ted Griffin.

Kevin Costner plays Beau and his performance calls to mind a gag from Family Guy. Chris, the dim son on the show, states, "I haven't been so confused since the ending of No Way Out!" and the shot immediately changes to him walking out of the movie wondering, "How does Kevin Costner keep getting work?" Yes, Rumor Has It . . . brings that question to mind as Costner is neither charismatic or even interesting as a character that pretty much demands being both. His performance feels surprisingly woody and Costner does not add anything to the role to sell the character.

Jennifer Aniston plays Sarah and it does not work for her. She proved to me her acting talents in Friends With Money, which might have been mood-terrible, but she was great. Aniston plays a character too much like her strong but occasionally befuddled Friends character Rachel. She exhibits no chemistry with either Costner or Ruffalo, which pretty much sinks the story.

Director Rob Reiner gets a lot of credit from me. He directed both When Harry Met Sally and the fabulous The American President. He is a man with some real talent and he has proven it time and time again. Rumor Has It . . . is not his best work. He doesn't bring out anything in the cast, does not make the story pop in a visually interesting way nor does he manage to sell us on any of the leads as being talented individuals.

Ultimately, Rumor Has It . . . just does not pop from the writing to the acting to the directing. It is not engaging and the events that are supposed to lead to a cathartic end fail to because the supposed catharsis is based on the concept that two of the characters are good together. Alas, we will hold out for better.

For other works with Mark Ruffalo, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Avengers
Date Night
Shutter Island
The Kids Are All Right
Where The Wild Things Are
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

3.5/10

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

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

Fear The Government Of Yore: Thirteen Days

The Good: Documents well the history, Good acting
The Bad: Little character development, Awkward pacing, Lack of consequences at the end.
The Basics: Despite Kevin Costner's excellent portrayal of Kenny O'Donnell, Thirteen Days fails to convincingly portray the Cuban Missile Crisis.


When Thirteen Days came out, it was right around the time George W. Bush was being considered for the job. When one of my friends saw the film, her opinion was. "I hope nothing like that ever happens if he becomes president, because we would all be dead." Having now seen Thirteen Days, I'm convinced as well that had anything like the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred during the Bush Administration, the United States of America would have initiated World War 3.

Thirteen Days opens with a U.S. spy plane flying over Cuba and photographing medium-range nuclear missiles being transported on the island. When news of this reaches President Kennedy, he and his brother are aided in preventing World War Three with the Soviet Union by Kenny O'Donnell, the president's special assistant. What follows is a chess match between the United States and the Soviet Union where the topic of the missile deployment forces each side to make their moves. As the U.S. gets closer and closer to war, the military applies pressure on Kennedy to go to war while cooler - and more intelligent - heads prevail on John F. Kennedy for a diplomatic solution.

One of the nice things about Thirteen Days is that it illustrates well the power of the intellect over military might. In Thirteen Days, the best minds in the nation are put in a room together and told to come up with solutions and they do. The brothers Kennedy and O'Donnell make for compelling intellectual characters who innovate when they need to.

John F. Kennedy is painted as a man thrust into responsibilities he never anticipated or wanted and is getting an ulcer as a result. Robert Kennedy is painted as an intellectual savior of the nation and watching Thirteen Days, it is impossible to not feel sorry for the assassination of this leader. He could have done amazing things and this film makes it clear that he had the mettle for it.

But the surprise character many of us do not know about from our history classes is Kenny O'Donnell. O'Donnell is a nice balance to the Kennedy's, offering practical more emotional - instinct-driven - opinions and theories. Moreover, his handling of military officers is a masterful work of political intelligence. By preventing such things as information about U.S. planes being shot at, he preempts the rules of engagement and prevents war from being a tactical necessity.

Unfortunately, the characters are caught mid-stream. If one hasn't taken US history courses or lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, the characters make little sense. That is, the film takes place while the Kennedy Administration is in progress, so their historical significance up to the Cuban Missile Crisis is not explored or even alluded to in a way that is significant.

Fortunately, the acting makes up for it. In some ways. Kevin Costner leads the cast as O'Donnell. He makes O'Donnell human in ways that many of the other characters are not. They tend to be monolithic, with Bill Smitrovich portraying the Joint Chief of Staff as a hard military man and Steven Culp as Robert Kennedy with almost no emotion. That is, Costner plays a more well rounded character with actual depth while the others play their characters as archetypes, as symbols more than viable individuals.

So, often it becomes difficult to tell if the acting is good for the writing or the writing is simply a study in caricatures as opposed to individuals. Notably, Bruce Greenwood plays John F. Kennedy with mixed convincibility. Some moments, he seems exactly like Kennedy does in historical broadcasts both televised and radio. But never does Greenwood get quite to the point of being the clever politician who stumped Nixon in the debates.

Unfortunately, that's indicative of the film. First, the tension never actually seems high. We all know how the Cuban Missile Crisis ended, so it's no surprise that we're not all nuked. But the film never captures the entire dread potential of nuclear war.

As well, the film never seems to get going. It has an excruciatingly slow build-up. If one were to walk in after the first half hour, they would not have lost any of the attempt to create a mood.

Finally, the lasting consequences of the incident are lacking from the film. The red telephone between the U.S. and the USSR is not brought in to conclude the film.

Add to that the direction uses very annoying black and white moments where the color simply disappears. There's no sensibility to the changes between color and black and white and it serves only to confuse the film's purpose.

A film on the Cuban Missile Crisis that doesn't grab the viewer in the first few minutes is death for the film; it's a major crisis in U.S. history that was tense for all those involved and if it fails to evoke a mood, then it fails. Ultimately, Thirteen Days fails to evoke a tense mood instead miring itself in pointless details like an encounter between Kenny O'Donnell and Jackie Kennedy, and ultimately fails as a film.

For other works with Bruce Greenwood, check out:
Super 8
Star Trek
Capote

5/10

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

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

| | |

Following Election Season: The Brilliant And Terrible Movie Swing Vote.

The Good: Message, Character, Acting
The Bad: Pacing, Plot predictability
The Basics: In a movie that problematically oscillates between the incredibly predictable and the philosophically brilliant, Swing Vote squeaks by as just worthy enough to watch.


[Note: This review was originally written in 2008 when I was on my way to Las Vegas, at the Mall Of America. Obviously, the 2008 election cycle is over, but I liked some of the thoughts in anticipation of that election that were a part of this review and decided to preserve them! Enjoy!]

While standing in line for the midnight showing of The Mummy: Tomb Of The Dragon Emperor last night, I found myself gazing at a movie poster for a film I had never heard of. Given how engaged I have been lately with watching and reviewing current release movies, this surprised me. The movie was called Swing Vote and the cast was led by Kevin Costner and supported by Kelsey Grammer, Stanley Tucci, Nathan Lane, and (exciting for me to discover during the opening credits) Nana Visitor. So, I decided to go to the first possible showing of Swing Vote as part of my cross-country trip. There's something cool about seeing a movie at the Mall Of America, where - oddly enough - movies are less expensive than in half of the nowhere places I've been to see movies lately.

So, I spent part of my vacation watching Swing Vote and, honestly, there has not been a movie I have seen lately where I wanted a second opinion on before writing a review of like Swing Vote. Sure, I can form an opinion and I can write an informed review, but for a change I was left with a real conundrum. How does one evaluate a movie that is technically 75% or more of what one enjoys in a movie, but leaves you with a "meh" feeling? Ten minutes into the movie, I called where the movie would end (correctly) and as the movie dragged on and on and on, I continued to feel disappointed and bored. But at the same time, the elements for success and greatness were generally present in Swing Vote.

Bud Johnson, a middle-aged drunk single father, finds reaches election day clueless as to the issues and ignorant of the candidates. His daughter, engaged, aware and intelligent beyond her years, writes a noteworthy essay on the value of voting for a school project, garnering the attention of local reporter Kate Madison. Proud of his daughter, Bud agrees to take her to vote to help her out with a class project, despite his obvious shortcomings of political awareness. Unfortunately for Molly, Bud loses his job, gets drunk and misses his opportunity to vote. In the process, Molly slips in to vote for him, but the voting machine fails.

So begins the series of improbable events which put the state of New Mexico in the vital position of deciding the presidential election and thus, Bud Johnson's single vote - to be cast within ten days - becomes the deciding voice of American politics. As Molly watches, media, the candidates and pundits descend upon Texaco, New Mexico to interview Bud and learn how he intends to vote. Amid a stampede of mail, wooing by President Boone and Democratic Candidate Donald Greenleaf, and pressure from the media, Bud begins to piece together how out of touch he is with everything and everyone in his life.

The fundamental problems with Swing Vote are that the plot is dreadfully predictable and the pacing is cripplingly slow. Snail's pace slow, that's how bad Swing Vote is for developing. It feels like it is taking the ten days between when Johnson's vote is lost and when he will cast his lawful vote. The movie develops with a speed that makes a Korean epic seem fast. And because the viewer is bombarded with the same thing over and over again, it is hard to stay engaged. In other words, unless one is truly as clueless and disengaged as Bud is, they will know where the movie is going and they get the point long before Bud does. To that end, we know almost immediately that Bud is not a man of strong opinions.

Bud is characterized in the very beginning as happiest when sleeping and so utterly clueless that he cannot come up with a single reason to save his own job when pressed by his boss. The viewer gets that there is nothing important to Bud and as unlikable as it is, not even Molly is an exception to that. Indeed, it is only when the Secret Service agent illustrates a deeper knowledge of what is going on in Molly's life that Bud actually becomes upset enough to act and change his ways. But as far as his actions, while Bud claims to love Molly and want to do anything to keep her with him, he fails utterly, including missing her "Take Your Father To Work Day."

The plot, then, is further slowed down by the fact that it is predictable as all get-out. This is a surprisingly formulaic movie and it sets up all of the conceits rather early. Bud and Molly have been abandoned by Molly's mother, whom Bud still pines for. Given the threat of being left, one may assume near the beginning that Mamma Johnson is going to pop up and she does. Moreover, the tension between Molly and Bud and their "little white lie" which will determine the presidency (i.e. that Bud did not originally cast a vote, Molly forged his signature to do so) sets up the inevitable debate over the value of telling the truth. And the end is exactly what anyone with a brain will peg it for. After all, this is a movie about the process, not the results. The kicker of the plot is that it is predictable and it is dully executed in that there are truly no surprises in Swing Vote, so it is a long time in getting to . . . well, nothing.

That said, the movie contains a complexity to it that is admirable and its message is one that deserves to be said, especially in an election year. In the tradition of The American President and Man Of The Year, Swing Vote presents a civics lesson for the masses and reinforces the importance of genuine democracy. But, just as The American President was a civics lesson turned entertainment, Swing Vote rightly exposes the various perspectives that are present in - and dangerous to - democracy in the United States. Molly has a throwaway line about Bud as an Independent because the two-party system has failed America, quietly dismissing the natural question of "What happens if Bud votes for a third party candidate?" In this mythical election, there are only two choices. Writer Jason Richman and Writer-director Joshua Michael Stern rightly explore both sides of the issues. Often with satire - like Man Of The Year - Swing Vote relies on cutting through the b.s. to the fundamental truths both parties live by. Incumbent President Boone is about winning and Greenleaf's campaign manager is about the exact same thing because he is tired of being on the right side of every issue, but losing elections. Philosophies can be absolutely correct and even held by the majority of citizens, yet not win elections and those who run those losing campaigns end up broken and politically unemployable.

But it is not until one of the final scenes that all of the complex political messages are put to use in any truly meaningful way and by that time the audience has stopped caring. Indeed, the whole idea that Bud Johnson's voice is the only important one in America by this point is redundant by the time Molly encourages him to live up to that responsibility. We get it the moment the candidates start courting Bud and responding to his slightest utterance with political advertisements. We get it; Bud Johnson is the voice of the everyman, the voice of the people. And that he is able to ask the important questions to the President and Greenleaf is both astonishing and wonderful. But then, it is precisely that kind of a movie.

Those who have a problem with stereotypes will have some serious issues with the film's depiction of Republicans and - especially - Democrats. The Democrats are played as wussy tree hugging losers so desperate for a win that they don't stand for anything. The Republicans are portrayed as win-at-all-costs authoritarians who will act upon any demand to retain power and control. And the Democrats are the celebrities and the Republicans bring the Nascar folks to Bud and it's obvious in all those ways that would be offensive, were it not for the many, many examples available from the past seven years to support them.

And the whole media plot of Swing Vote has a thoroughly admirable statement to make; each voice is important. The candidates ought to be asked the tough questions. It is Kate Madison who sees the potential in Molly and that is a wonderful twist, but it puts the emphasis on Molly's message: complacency is the death of the Republic. In this election year, it makes one wonder: why aren't the candidates being asked the questions that should be asked, the ones that would make them cringe if they were actually pressed to answer them?

But as I sat watching Swing Vote and not enjoying myself, I kept asking, "What could they be doing better?" Bud and Molly and even Kate have pretty wonderful character arcs. They develop, they are real and they have a point and purpose (even if we can see it coming). Moreover, the candidates learn their valuable lessons of the importance of standing for something (ironically presented by Stern and Richman in the courting of a common man who stands for nothing). And we, the viewers, are left wondering "Where is our Bud Johnson?"

Stanley Tucci, whom I enjoyed in his brief role in Lucky Number Slevin, is impressive as Martin Fox, the sleazy campaign manager for President Boone. Unlike most of his good-natured characters wit redemptive qualities, Tucci plays Fox as a truly slimy political operative. He is cold and calculating in a way anyone who likes Tucci will be disturbed by. The performance is brilliance for its simplicity and the way Tucci delivers almost every one of his lines with the sense of ethical detachment that makes one have no doubt what is going through his character's mind at every moment.

Kevin Costner plays Bud and he and costar Paula Patton have excellent on screen chemistry. What Patton and Costner have in simmering attraction, Costner and Madeline Carroll have in a weird father/daughter-wife chemistry. Costner is especially effective as the working poor Bud. Just as Nathan Lane slickly and beautifully delivers his sound byte, jingoistic platitudes with flair and a slick quality, Costner delivers almost every line of his with a drunken, dumb, "aw, shucks" quality (minus the implied charm). In other words, this might be the perfect use of Costner; he plays a washed up loser expertly.

But the one who steals the film is Madeline Carroll. Carroll defies my distaste for all young people and children in films by being articulate, realistic and holding her own against every major star put in her path. She has the humorous lines expertly timed and when she pulls for the heartstrings, she gets them. Her performance is mature, unwaveringly solid and a delight to see. And with the acting up to this caliber, it becomes very difficult not to recommend this film, despite being cripplingly dull. So, that is why - ultimately - I am recommending it.

In an election year, it is especially important to get the message out and if nothing else, Swing Vote is about message. It is about the importance of not choosing between the lesser of two evils, but about being engaged citizens. It is about responding to what is truly important in our lives. Swing Vote expertly illustrates that the personal is political, that we all have a stake in the political process and we need - desperately - to exercise that. To hell with it taking forever to get there!

And while I have absolutely no hope that operatives from either campaign are reading my humble review, Swing Vote inspires me to ask the candidates as directly as I can - or beg those who have the opportunity to put our candidates on the spot with substantive questions that could change the way we debate politics in America - the following:

(For John McCain:) In the last few years, there have been ample opportunities to stand up for human rights and the inherent value of human dignity. As a former prisoner of war and victim of unspeakable brutality at the hands of the enemy, could you please tell us what level of torture do you deem acceptable in the pursuit of national security?

(For Barack Obama:) Given your repeated statements about how wrong the Iraq War was and your refusal to support it and knowing that only Congress can end a war, if elected president, would you ask the lame duck congress to withdraw the presidential authority for the War in Iraq and have the troops withdrawn by January 20, 2009 in order to begin your administration free of that conflict?

And for those reading this review and wondering how this has anything at all to do with Swing Vote, this is exactly the point; Swing Vote implores us to use any moment we have a voice and a question to ask those in power about what is important to us. Using this venue, believe it or not, shows I "got" it with Swing Vote. For a movie as dreadfully put together, I'd rather illustrate I "got" it and try than . . . well, be complacent.

For other works featuring George Lopez, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Smurfs
Marmaduke
Valentine's Day
The Spy Next Door

6/10

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

© 2011, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

A Smart Epic About "Going Native" In The 1860s: Dances With Wolves Satisfies.

The Good: Surprisingly funny, Engaging plot, Good character development, Decent acting, Great DVD bonus features
The Bad: A few narrative conceits, Minutia
The Basics: An exceptional film with a few wrinkles, Dances With Wolves is epic and appears on DVD with an incredible volume of bonus features.


It is a rare thing these days for me to find a film that I encounter and enjoy that contains voice-overs. I am generally sick of voice-overs in television and film and if a director is good at what they are doing, a film or television show ought not to require narration (to wit, viewers of Sex & The City would pretty much figure out Samantha was at the other end of town having sex when it pops up on screen without Sarah Jessica Parker's voice telling viewers that's what they're seeing). I mention this at the outset of my review of Dances With Wolves because the film includes voice-over and they are not at all intrusive or stupid and they make the story feel even more epic. Because the protagonist in the film is writing in a journal, it's nice for viewers to know what his thoughts are. As well, most of the voice-overs fill in gaps in action between scenes and that works well as a transition tool.

That said, when I sat down for the almost-four hour epic that is Dances With Wolves, I knew almost nothing about it, save that it was very long, dealt with frontier (America) politics and culture and was a winner of the Best Picture Oscar. What I was entirely unprepared for was how funny the movie was. At its outset, Dances With Wolves is remarkably funny with esoteric characters, slapstick comedy and it has the effect of being disarmingly funny, much like The West Wing (reviewed here!). Just as when people talk about The West Wing, they seldom mention how funny it actually is, so too is Dances With Wolves, at least at the beginning.

As is my usual, this film is based upon a novel, but I've not read the novel so this is purely a review of the film Dances With Wolves. As well, considering that novelist Michael Blake also wrote the screenplay, it seems reasonable that he was thorough in translating the essential aspects of the story into the movie.

In 1863 in Tennessee, John Dunbar is fighting for the Union and during a siege he acts as a decoy. By distracting the besieging Confederates, Dunbar helps the Union forces prevail and despite his wounds, he is rehabilitated and sent westward. Sent to resupply and join the force holding Fort Sedgewick, Dunbar goes west and arrives at the dilapidated fort shortly after the officers there desert from lack of supplies. Dunbar dutifully restores the fort and even makes a companion with a wolf he names Two Socks. But one day while bathing, he discovers a Sioux trying to steal his horse. Scared off, a group of Sioux girls attempt to take the horse and soon thereafter another party of Sioux tries to make off with Dunbar's loyal horse.

Restless about the raids, Dunbar rides to meet the Sioux, in the process finding a woman wounded. In her grief, the woman attempted suicide and Dunbar rescues her, taking her back to the Sioux and in the process insinuating to them that he is not a threat. After that, the tribe's spiritual leader, Kicking Bird, and lead warrior, Wind In His Hair, begin visiting Dunbar and they slowly begin communicating. The communication goes smoother when they are joined by Stands With A Fist, the woman Dunbar rescued. As they learn to communicate, they bond over their mutual search for buffalo and their desire to get along. But as the neighboring Pawnee threaten the Sioux, Dunbar - known among the Sioux as Dances With Wolves - chooses to stand with them and prevent them - or the U.S. expansion - from changing their way of life.

Dances With Wolves is a big, long film with only a few bad shots in the entire movie. The strength of the film is that it truly takes the time to develop and it does so in a decent way with a reasonable sense of pace. So, at the halfway point (there is an intermission on DVD, after which the viewer must flip the disc) when Dunbar complains about feeling bored, the viewer does not feel his boredom. Instead, there is a sense that the story is going somewhere and the viewer empathizes with Dunbar's frustration over the communications gap.

The only other real gripe I have with the film is the predictability of certain elements in it. The moment Stands With A Fist enters the story, the viewer knows they will likely end up together as they are the only two single white people in the film. While this initially annoyed me, the fact that it is addressed within the narrative, including a tongue-in-cheek reference to them being meant for one another because they are both white, makes up for it. As well, there are minor narrative nits, like Stands With A Fist having a flashback to reveal her backstory which included elements she could not possibly have seen.

That said, Dances With Wolves is a brilliant film. It is exceptionally rare that a film takes the time to explore differences in communication. In fact, outside the television episode "Darmok," I cannot recall seeing a work where the process of two people trying to understand one another was so realistically portrayed. And once the language barrier is broken, the story still develops with cultural differences still coming up and being highlighted. The cultural differences between Dunbar and the Sioux are intriguing, but the movie is smart enough to include universal elements that make it more than just a story about an American and Native Americans. So, for example, there is a pretty universal sense of humor and fun to the moment when the girls in the tribe try to play a prank on Dances With Wolves and Stands With A Fist by closing a smoke flap on the tent they are sharing to lure them out.

Conversely, the action sequences are presented with surprising clarity, and credit for that goes to director Kevin Costner. Costner makes the visual sense of Dances With Wolves powerful and clear. Instead of just showing innumerable Western landscapes, Costner keeps the visual storytelling tight. In fight sequences, the sides are clear and the action happens in a way that the viewer can easily see what is going on. Those troubled by recent films where everything happens too quickly to follow will be pleased by the visual sensibility of Dances With Wolves.

But what Costner deserves real credit for as a director is capturing the subtle facial expressions of the actors in the film. Costner captures himself looking guilty or loving quite well, but there is a moment in the film when Graham Greene's face falls and Costner captures the full range of understanding that crosses his visage. It is, truly, a perfect moment and Costner manages to catch it. This is not just a credit to Costner, but to Greene's acting. He is flawless as the medicine man, Kicking Bird. And while he has the whole "stoic Indian" routine down, some of his best moments come when he portrays Kicking Bird as patient, loving and intuitive.

Also playing opposite Costner is Mary McDonnell, who does a remarkably good job of playing an assimilated American. In her earliest scenes, she seems just like any of the Sioux women, her acting is so flawless and professional. When she begins to speak English, her broken English is convincing and she sounds like a person who is only speaking English based on memories from her distant past. As Stands With A Fist continues to interpret for Dunbar and Kicking Bird, McDonnell slowly alters her dialect and the transition is realistic and good. While her character's arc might be predictable, her acting makes it work.

And Kevin Costner is good on-screen as well as behind the camera. Costner plays Dunbar and the role is unlike any other I have seen him in. In fact, this might well be the performance of his career as he plays his character as deep there are moments when he portrays real hurt better than I ever would have guessed he could.

On DVD, Dances With Wolves comes with two different commentary tracks and a documentary on the making of the film which was made when the film was originally released. As well, there is an entire second disc with bonus features. That disc includes the theatrical trailers and featurettes on everything from the casting to the costume design. This is truly a wonderful set of bonus features for an astonishingly good film.

Ultimately, Dances With Wolves is not a perfect film, but with the quality of the DVD presentation, it comes remarkably close.

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

For other epic dramas, please visit my reviews of:
The Lord Of The Rings
The Untouchables
The Red Violin

8.5/10

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

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



| | |

The Untouchables: Making Treasury Officers Look Good & The Law Of White

The Good: Pace, Moments of acting, Tone
The Bad: Plot, General Character Issues
The Basics: A fine film with competent acting, characters and plot in a standard morality play in 1930s Chicago.


Whenever I get into a foul mood, I go to get movies out of the library and I look for something violent. Sometimes when I do that, I want something that will make my heart beat a little faster, something where there were people with guns in just about every scene. I've not yet seen Reservoir Dogs and my hope once upon a time when I saw The Untouchables was that I'd be able to find that to satisfy my once-yearly desire to see something violent, action-filled and bloody. I suppose I'm no worse off for seeing it.

That's not to say The Untouchables is terribly violent. It isn't, at least not by comparison. But it has enough action to keep one watching it. In fact, the rate at which things happen in the film is nice; there's always something happening in the movie and that makes it easy to keep the attention of a viewer.

Basically, the film is the pursuit of gangster Al Capone by Elliot Ness. This fictionalized version has the U.S. Treasury Officer coming into Chicago, enlisting a streetsmart cop, Malone, and searching for a way to bust the mob kingpin. As Ness becomes more successful, Capone becomes more desperate, hunting down the inner circle of Ness' group.

The tone of the film is as obvious as the plot: it's a pretty standard good vs. evil play. What succeeds about the tone is that it explores the blurring of the two. Capone doesn't seem all bad (until he takes a baseball bat to an associate's head) and Ness clearly struggles with doing the right thing. That it is explored is nice, that it is explored well is even better. However, in the end, the truth is, no matter how they accomplish their ends, the bad guys are still motivated by greed and avarice, the good guys have the higher principles of law enforcement working for them.

The movie follows, quite well, the Law of White. The Law of White in moviemaking states that if you're going to dress a character in bright, flashy whites, at some point there will be blood on it.

What fails is the obviousness of the plot and none of the characters seem to be terribly well drawn. The educated viewer knows what happened historically, so it's a matter of how that is pulled off. It's pulled off adequately, but not superlatively. Just like the characters. Their lines are pretty much what we expect from "heroes" and "villains" and little more. The acting is likewise competent, but not terribly superlative.

In truth, The Untouchables is almost an archetypal average movie. It does everything well, but not extraordinarily. It lives up to our expectations, but does not exceed them or enhance our appreciation of history, the action genre or develop an emotional attachment to it.

For other tense movies with a bit of violence to them, please check out my reviews of:
The Game
The Departed
Gamer

6/10

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

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