So Many Contrivances Rob When In Rome Of An Actual Relationship!

The Good: Most of the acting is not actually terrible.
The Bad: No remarkable performances, Thinly painted characters, Absurd plot, Pounding soundtrack.
The Basics: Kristen Bell makes an all-around dud of a romantic comedy with When In Rome, a film that forgets to put any romance in the film!


When I reviewed Confessions Of A Shopaholic (reviewed here!), I used a title that I find I wish I could continue using. So very many movies, especially romantic comedies, are predicated on the idea that women are idiots that it is shocking how many women continue to support Hollywood’s ridiculous notions of them by buying tickets to movies where women are portrayed as simpletons at best, idiots at worst. I am always pleasantly surprised when I uncover a romantic comedy that defies that tradition.

Unfortunately, When In Rome is not one of the romantic comedies that defies the notion that even smart women are lovestruck into becoming idiotic in the most unfathomable ways relative to the rest of their character traits.

I picked up When In Rome based on the presence of Kristen Bell, who bought quite a bit of cache with me from her performance in Veronica Mars (reviewed here!). She illustrates none of that potential or talent in When In Rome.

In When In Rome, Bell plays Beth, a young woman who loves her work more than she has ever loved a man. Waiting for the right man to come along, she works hard at her New York City art gallery on a major installation. However, as she makes plans for that installation, her sister meets a man whom she intends to marry rather abruptly. Beth flies off to Italy for the wedding and at it, she finds herself charmed by the best man, Nick Beamon. Nick seems pretty smitten with Beth as well, but at the fountain of love outside the church, Beth witnesses Nick getting kissed by another woman and she assumes her feelings were wrong. Taking some coins from the fountain, Beth finds herself pursued by five men, including Nick, when she returns stateside.

As Beth attempts to get rid of Lance (the magician), Antonio (the crazy artist), Gale (a self-obsessed male model), and Al (an older divorcee), she finds her problems at the art gallery bailed out by Nick. But soon, she realizes she loves him more than her job and she works to undo the magic that binds the other men to her.

The fundamental problem with When In Rome is that the relationship between Nick and Beth is so unimpressive and indistinct as to be no more significant than any of the contrived relationships from the fountain magic. There is nothing special about their relationship and, sadly, Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel (Beth and Nick, respectively) have less than no on-screen chemistry. There is no sexual chemistry on screen between them and their lack of passion makes much of the film dull, though not unbearable.

In fact, When In Rome devotes so much time to presenting all of the insignificant characters that in order to keep the film down at the ninety minute range (the standard minimum running time for most movies and, apparently, the ideal running time for contrived romantic comedies) , it neglects to significantly develop the relationship between Nick and Beth. Their relationship is not the only one that is underwhelming: Beth’s sister, Joan, pops in entirely for plot support. In addition to providing the plot point that allows Beth and Nick to meet, Joan calls from Italy to relay the myth of the fountain and, as the film goes on, the various steps needed to defeat the magic that Beth is subject to.

The other suitors are all “types” with one discerning character trait each and their schtick gets very old very quick (especially Jon Heder’s Lance, who is paired yet again with his Napoleon Dynamite co-star Efren Ramirez).

On the acting front, When In Rome is a terrible waste of the talent involved. None of the performers give anything the viewer has not already seen from them before – Will Arnett, for example, is essentially playing, alternately, his characters from Arrested Development and 30 Rock as Antonio. It is hard to say whose talent is wasted more: his, Danny DeVito’s or Anjelica Huston, all of whom are relegated to bit supporting roles.

When In Rome is not funny, not clever, and uses all of the usual conceits for a romantic comedy geared at getting the 18 – 24 year old women’s audience’s dollars. On DVD, When In Rome features a blooper reel, deleted scenes, and 2 music videos, none of which make the film any better. When In Rome is an all-around dud that seems determined to continue insulting the intelligence of women by appealing to an outdated sense of romance with the most ridiculous conceits imaginable.

For other works with Alexis Dziena, please visit my reviews of:
Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist
Invasion
Havoc
Strangers With Candy

1.5/10

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

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

Striving For Average, Ghost Rider Is More Underwhelming And Predictable Than Actually Bad.

The Good: Decent general story, Most of the special effects/character designs, Acing is fine
The Bad: Utterly predictable, Odd character incongruities, Never quite pops
The Basics: Ghost Rider fails to be superlative in any way, but is not the worst Marvel superhero film ever.


I never had any real interest in watching Ghost Rider. In fact, I recall being very surprised to see it in my wife's DVD collection when we moved in with one another. I probably would not have watched it, save that my wife snagged us sneak preview tickets to the sequel, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance for this week. So, figuring that I ought to go into it prepared, I sat down with her this afternoon and we took in Ghost Rider. It was only after the film began that I realized I had read a graphic novel that had Ghost Rider in it (albeit as a peripheral character), Shadowland: Blood On The Streets (reviewed here!). Considering that Ghost Rider did not remain on his feet very long in the book, I had pretty low expectations for the film.

And Ghost Rider is not terrible. It, like Jonah Hex (reviewed here!) suffers more from being predictable and somewhat uninspired than it does from being actually terrible. In other words, the movie is predictable, relies upon some obvious conceits and simply never pops, as opposed to being genuinely, unrelentingly bad. The elements in the movie never rise above what one might expect from a superhero origin story and the idea that the movie has a character with a somewhat righteous anger never quite lands.

Following an explanation of what the Ghost Riders are - bounty hunters for the devil - young Johnny Blaze, a motorcycle stunt rider and all-around daredevil, is tapped by the devil Mephistopheles to be the latest incarnation of Ghost Rider. Johnny is reluctant, but when Mephistopheles offers to cure his father's cancer, Johnny witlessly relents. When his father is killed the same day his cancer is cured, Johnny tries to run away from the devil and from the love of his young life, Roxanne.

Years later, Johnny is in his prime when Mephistopheles comes calling. On the day he is reunited with Roxanne and performs his most dangerous stunt jump of his life, Mephisopheles resurfaces to have Johnny take out a mysterious man, Blackheart. Granted the full fire-wielding powers of the Ghost Rider and riding around as a flaming skeleton on a transformed motorcycle, Ghost Rider goes up against the supernatural Blackheart and his elementally-empowered demons. But Blackheart is a devil himself and when the police, in chasing down Johnny, expose Roxanne to him, the Ghost Rider must find a way to save the world from a demonic apocalypse.

Ghost Rider has many of the elements of a successful and decent superhero story, but nothing rises above the typical. Paired with some utterly unfathomable elements - like a Ghost Rider who outruns the devil on his horse (an act that seems odd when Mephistopheles clearly travels between different planes of reality) - Ghost Rider simmers. While the love story between Johnny and Roxanne has the potential to be integral to the story and characters, it is never presented with enough passion to make it seem as vital as it ends up being. In other words, it is a simple plot point, as opposed to a genuinely strong character aspect.

On the plot front, the movie is predictable. The devil makes a deal with a man, comes to collect and the man is stuck trying to save his soul and outwit the devil. In taking on the powers granted to him by Mephistopheles, Johnny meets a mentor (Caretaker), puts a loved one in peril, and slowly dispatches his enemies. The movie has the pretty typical moments of training or understanding where the protagonist slowly learns his powers and limitations and the film climaxes, like virtually every superhero film, in a big battle sequence. But, again, in Ghost Rider, the elements feel more typical and trite than extraordinary.

Similarly, on the character front, the arcs are predictable. The movie has all of the typical hero elements along with the usual romantic subplot - that is almost vital enough to matter - and the wisecracking sidekick. Again, at no point does the antihero protagonist actually pop. I continued to not actually care if the world of the Ghost Rider did fall to the devil because there was not enough (nor anyone) significant enough to actually care about.

On the acting front, Nicholas Cage does fine as Johnny Blaze, though he is remarkably passionless in his scenes with Eva Mendez. He plays shocked and stupefied opposite her, not actually in love. Similarly, Peter Fonda seems asleep at the wheel as Mephistopheles and Sam Elliott is playing an archetype more than an individual as the Caretaker. Even Wes Bentley gives an understated performance as the villainous Blackheart. And while many of the lines of dialogue are just obvious, guessable (about two minutes before they are delivered) and just bad, the acting is not. The actors do what they can with the material given to them, nothing more, nothing less.

Finally, the special effects are fair. Director and writer Mark Steven Johnson does a fine job with the general look of the movie. The creature designs are good, though the Ghost Rider skull looked much more animated than real. The editing, on the other hand, it atrocious and sucks the movie down a little.

On DVD, Ghost Rider comes with two commentary tracks, two featurettes and previews, none of which reveal just how there was enough enthusiasm in the project to warrant a sequel.

For other movies based upon the Marvel comic books, please check out my reviews of:
Captain America: The First Avenger
X-Men: First Class
Thor
Iron Man 2
The Incredible Hulk
Spider-Man 3
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer
Blade: Trinity
Elektra
Daredevil

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

Overcoming Adversity With Impressive Attacks: Daredevil Ages Well As A Superhero Film!

The Good: Action, Acting, Character, Mood
The Bad: Feels derivative of Batman
The Basics: When the blind Matt Murdock cannot get justice for victims as a lawyer, he runs through the night as a vigilante in Daredevil


The superhero genre is one that is, frankly, quite tired. It is fairly formulaic and in the end, most superheroes blend together, save how they achieve what they do. That is, Spider-man, Superman, Batman, they all end up having the same essential goal, but how they achieve it is different. As a result, there are only so many superhero stories one may see before one has pretty much seen it all. In a lot of ways, it's like sitcoms today; putting out a new one is like trying to squeeze one more into an already saturated market. It was with that in mind, that I sat down to Daredevil, which makes sense as I have named 2011 my Daredevil year (check out my review of Guardian Devil here!).

Matt Murdock, a blind defense attorney by day, has the alter ego Daredevil by night. When Murdock's father was killed for not throwing a boxing match, Murdock vowed to fight in the name of good in Hell's Kitchen. Now, years later, he is a vigilante and he is alone, fighting the good fight by day and making sure the justice that he can't get as a lawyer is delivered at night. When the Kingpin, the mobster of Hell's Kitchen decides he wants to eliminate the competition, he sends Bullseye. Bullseye is a hitman who can hit anyone or anything with a projectile and he never misses. When Bullseye kills a prominent member of the business community, Elektra, who has been involved with Matt Murdock, believes Daredevil is to blame and she vows revenge. While attempting to stop Bullseye, who has sworn to Kingpin he will kill Daredevil, Daredevil must avoid Elektra and convince her he is not to blame for her father's death.

While Daredevil has much of the same darkness and ambiguity of Tim Burton's Batman (and Batman Returns), it still has a decent feel to it that makes us want to keep watching it. Murdock's encounters with Elektra are easy to watch and there is definite chemistry between them. Lacking Murdock's clear goals, Elektra becomes something of an intriguing wildcard in the mix of the film. Daredevil is a great example of a person with an honorable goal, but a questionable execution of it. So when Daredevil insists he is not the bad guy at various points in the film, it is certainly up for debate.

Daredevil personifies the moral ambiguity of today, where people have the generally right idea about what is right and wrong, but how they execute their beliefs seems uncertain or contrary to morality. Thus, it makes a great deal of sense that Daredevil is blind, what better manifestation of ambiguity?

And the effects that surround Daredevil as we "see" how he visualizes the world are very clever. His heightened senses are intriguing and it's always clear in Ben Affleck's performance that the character is blind. That takes a special balance and Affleck maintains it. So, while the special effects are very cool, they do not hold a candle to the acting. Affleck here becomes Matt Murdock and Daredevil; there is no trace of Affleck, which is what good acting ought to be.

In fact, the casting throughout Daredevil is astonishingly good. Jennifer Gardner IS Elektra. Gardner manages to do a great job of personifying the hard-hitting heroine. She's put in a rough place, playing a strong female character without simply reprising her famous Alias role. She manages to do it, though and quite well. Elektra is different in body language, tone and costuming than Sydney Bristow.

The villains are pretty impressive as well. Michael Clarke Duncan is cold and powerful as the Kingpin. He manages to not be simply the thug he was in The Whole Nine Yards, too. He's more reserved, more businesslike, more professional and Duncan brings all of that out in his performance. Finally, Collin Farrell is wickedly villainous, without a trace of humor, as Bullseye. The cast comes together with very natural chemistry and coherence, creating a distinctive feel to Hell's Kitchen that is different from Gotham in Batman.

So while there is some of the good vs. evil that we've come to expect from superhero films, Daredevil makes it feel new and somewhat original with greater emphasis on character and an intriguing twist with a somewhat disabled hero. Daredevil feels new because it is not relying on special effects and it puts greater emphasis on quality acting and fleshing out of characters than most superhero films.

Having only read a single Daredevil comic, I am not qualified to speak on how this film stacks up in comparison, but it seems to me that anyone who is into action-adventure films will find something to enjoy here. If you can handle violence, this film will be fine, but it's not a film for kids.

For other super hero films, please check out my reviews of:
Iron Man 2
Watchmen
The Dark Knight
Wonder Woman

7.5/10

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

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |