The Overt Comedy Of The Marvel Cinematic Universe: Ant Man Is Enjoyable!

The Good: Funny, Good special effects, Decent performances, Moments of character
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs
The Basics: The Marvel Cinematic Universe highlights the sidekicks and
back bench characters in Ant Man, which is successful as a comedy film!


The strategy from the executives in charge of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has become fairly evident over the last few years of the franchise's Phase 2 films: Marvel/Disney releases (at least one) "safe" film (one with a well-established character or team) each year and one "risk" film. The "risk" film is one that is not "guaranteed" to blow away the box-office because it is either not a sequel or does not feature one of the a-list Marvel Comics superheroes. For example, last year, amid all of the sequels from Avengers-heroes, Marvel released Guardians Of The Galaxy (reviewed here!). This year, after the reliable-hit The Avengers Age Of Ultron (reviewed here!), Marvel's addition to Summer Blockbuster Season is Ant Man.

Ant Man represents the largest risk to the Marvel Cinematic Universe Marvel has taken since Iron Man (reviewed here!). Had Guardians Of The Galaxy not been a sleeper-hit, it could still have been written off by the studio as an attempt to offer backstory and insight into the villain of the forthcoming The Avengers: Infinity War and the consequences for the fans would not have been huge because virtually the entire story happened off-planet. But Ant Man is very much based on Earth and it is a risk, like Iron Man. Revisionists like to forget how much of a risk Iron Man was: Marvel tried to launch the Marvel Cinematic Universe five years prior with the (usually) reliable fan-favorite Incredible Hulk headlining a film that flopped, the protagonist of Iron Man was not even the highest-paid actor in the cast, and the comic book Iron Man was not even the most-popular (or even top five!) book Marvel Comics was producing at the time. Marvel took an interesting approach with Ant Man to mitigate the box office risk.

Perhaps the oddest choice - at least on the surface - that Marvel Studios made with Ant Man was to create a film that did not center around the original and widely popular incarnation of the title character. Instead of having Dr. Pym, the original Ant-Man, as the film's protagonist, Ant Man focuses on Pym handing the mantle of Ant-Man to Scott Lang. The jaded fan in me suspects that not having Pym as the film's lead is an excuse for lazy writing - Pym is one of the four smartest people in the Marvel Universe and having to write for a character who is that smart can be intimidating for writers and for the audience - and an attempt to make broader appeal for the film (with Tony Stark and Bruce Banner, adding Dr. Pym to the mix makes the Marvel Cinematic Universe very scientist-heavy, which appeals more to geeks - read "niche audience"). As a business move, passing the mantle in Ant Man makes sense: it allows Marvel to make an overt comedy film and it introduces a whole "secret history" element to the Marvel Cinematic Universe - there is a "lost era" in which Dr. Pym as Ant-Man would have been the dominant super-hero in the Marvel Universe!

Ant Man is the closest film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe to overtly focus on the second-string characters in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (they haven't taken a risk like that outside Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D.). Ant-Man is trained for a very specific mission and he only goes up against one adversary. As well, Ant-Man encounters only one Avenger . . . and it's The Falcon, who is presented almost as a parody of himself in the film. But, for all the hedging of bets, Ant Man works and it does exactly what it is supposed to: create a comedy film that still fits into the Marvel Cinematic Universe and add another hero who will have an integral part in saving the Earth from Thanos in The Avengers: Infinity War. And should Robert Downey Jr. decide to opt-out of any of the future Marvel Cinematic Universe films, it seems like Paul Rudd is being set up to fill the same niche for one-liners.

Opening in the late 1980s, Dr. Hank Pym confronts Peggy Carter, Howard Stark, and S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Mitchell Carson. Pym controls his revolutionary Pym Particle, which allows him to change size. Rather than let that technology fall into S.H.I.E.L.D.'s or Stark's hands, Pym resigns from their arrangement and becomes a recluse. Almost thirty years later, in the wake of Ultron's attack in Sokovia, Scott Lang is released from prison in San Francisco. Having served his sentence for burglary, for returning the ill-gotten gains of a company to its exploited customers, Lang is determined to fly right and get a legitimate job in order to get access to his daughter, Cassie. But, after getting fired by Baskin-Robbins, and with his friends pressuring him to do another heist, Lang succumbs and agrees to help break into a reclusive millionaire's safe. When he does, he becomes suspicious because the safe he cracks leads only to a strange suit.

Lang tries on the suit and discovers that it gives him the ability to shrink down to about 1/4" tall and the voice in his helmet tells him that the man from whom he stole the suit is impressed with him. Lang attempts to return the suit, but is arrested while leaving Dr. Pym's house. While in custody, Lang is visited by Pym, who is pretending to be his lawyer, and is broken out of jail by ants who bring him the shrinking suit. Escaping the police, Lang properly meets Dr. Pym, who explains why he is interested in Lang. Dr. Pym's corporation has been taken over by Darren Cross in Pym's absence and Cross has spent the intervening decades developing his equivalent to the Pym Particle. As Cross's work nears fruition, he is negotiating to sell his weaponized shrinking suit to the highest bidder. Seeing that Cross's perverted vision of his work is about to fundamentally change the world's landscape - Cross is selling an army of shrinking suits for defense, espionage, and the elimination of personal privacy - Pym begs Lang to break into his old laboratory and steal the prototype before Cross's work is finished. Trained by Pym's estranged daughter, Hope, Scott takes up the mantle of Ant-Man to save the world from Cross's twisted army.

In many ways, Ant-Man is a very typical super hero movie and an equally-obvious heist film. Were it not for Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D. using a number of similar elements on almost a weekly basis, there would be a lot in Ant-Man that was new to fans of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. So, on the plot and character arcs, there is not a lot that is original.

That said, Scott Lang is an interesting protagonist and Michael Douglas brilliantly plays Pym as his straightman, even though he is forced to deliver an incredible amount of the film's exposition. The performances in Ant-Man are good, but play more to the performer's established wheelhouses, as opposed to expanding their range. Evangeline Lilly plays Hope Van Dyne in essentially the same way she played Kate on Lost (reviewed here!) and Paul Rudd plays Scott Lang with his usual knack for shtick. But, Rudd's performance is virtually interchangeable with his acting in Wanderlust (reviewed here!) and Anthony Mackie's appearance as The Falcon does not add anything truly substantive to the character's role (not Mackie's fault, it's just the part that was written for him!). Lilly and Rudd have virtually no on-screen chemistry, which makes their final scene seem like a cheap plot point, as opposed to something organic from the characters.

But more than the predictability, Ant-Man suffers from problems with the details. While there are fleeting moments where the special effects are erratic (it's tough to do the scale consistently properly and make miniaturized characters visible on screen!), the real issues come in the exposition and the tie-ins to the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe. Dr. Pym says that he cannot re-take the mantle of Ant-Man, which implies there are dire consequences from constantly using the Ant-Man suit. Lang doesn't question that adequately and Pym's lack of explanation makes him seem either dishonest or disingenuous. At the other end of the spectrum, the moment Cross's buyers are revealed to be HYDRA, the fact that Grant Ward does not appear on-screen feels like a real missed opportunity (especially considering where his character ended up at the end of the second season of Agents Of S.H.I.E.L.D.).

Ant-Man is funny and all evidence points to the idea that it will hold up under multiple viewings better than some of the earlier works in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Pym is a great mentor and his dynamic with Hope is one of the most realistic relationships yet depicted in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ultimately, Ant-Man is one of the better endeavors in Summer Blockbuster Season this year.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Dragon Blade
Fantastic 4
Jenny's Wedding
Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation
Lila & Eve
Minions
No Way Jose
Terminator Genisys
Inside Out
Jurassic World

7/10

For other elements of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, please check out my Marvel Cinematic Universe Review Index Page for a listing organized from best to worst!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The American President: The American Intellectual, Sorkin Hits The Big Time!

The Good: Intelligent dialogue, Interesting characters, Romantic, Quality acting
The Bad: Standard plot, Light on DVD extras
The Basics: A fun romantic comedy that is intelligently written and wonderfully acted and foreshadows more greatness to come from writer Aaron Sorkin, The American President is still worth seeing!


Aaron Sorkin, the literary brains behind the brilliant Sports Night (reviewed here!) and the television blockbuster The West Wing (reviewed here!), started off with plays and films and this is one of his. When I first saw the movie, I enjoyed it so much I watched it a second time immediately. Seriously. I can count on one hand the number of times that I have seen a movie and sat and rewatched it right away.

President Andrew Shepherd is finding life as President less than stellar when a political rival begins to publicly attack his policies as a ramp up to election season and his own bid for the presidency. As Shepherd tries to ignore Senator Rumsom's sabre-rattling, he marshals his staff to try to pass a gun control bill which he watches steadily get gutted of all meaning. At the same time, the environmental lobby puts pressure on Shepherd to pass a strong environmental bill.

The environmentalists hire Sydney Ellen Wade, one of the best lobbyists in the business and she begins to work her magic of drumming up support for the bill. Wade and Shepherd collide and the president finds himself instantly attracted to her. As the two begin a relationship, Sydney's past, Shepherd's widowerhood and the ambitions of Rumsom all begin to get tremendous media attention. When Shepherd's chief of staff sees an opportunity to get the gun bill passed while burying the environmental one, a conflict is set off between the new lovers that threatens both of their careers and their agendas.

The plot is fairly simple: Michael Douglas plays the widowered president of the United States who falls in love with an environmental lobbyist. In the course of their courting, political adversaries fight the president and personal rivals attack Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening) and their budding relationship is threatened. Pull out the social roles and it's just about every other romantic comedy ever written. The plot is not at all original. Indeed, the plot is terribly formulaic and director Rob Reiner seems to know that. He directs The American President with a very safe look, such that it appears as virtually every other romantic comedy does.

But that is where the conventionalism of The American President ends and it comes back to the genius that is Aaron Sorkin. Sorkin has an amazing knack for dialogue and characters. Sorkin's Shepherd, Wade, and staff members Lewis, Robin, and Leon all speak like we wish our American politicians and public servants would speak. They use a level of diction that makes them seem like they know what they are doing. They sound convincing and they take principled stands. But the level of dialogue, the sheer volume of words spoken in this film so truly captures the reality of human interaction and conversation like too few films do.

And the thing is, Sorkin does not shrink away from this. He even acknowledges it. One of the funniest moments in the film involves Shepherd watching Rumsom on television doing a campaign speech and critiquing his closing line. It's great and it acknowledges for the audience that Sorkin understands he is creating an ideal world that fills the viewer with some sense of hope and yet roots it with a realism that is just on the recognizable side of fantasy.

The characters are niche characters that manage to overcome their niches. So, for example, First Daughter Lucy acts like the docile daughter who has lost her mother, but also is able to confront her father in a way that is realistic and not bratty. The few scenes she is in humanize Shepherd like none of the rest of the scenes do. Similarly, Lewis Rothschild could easily be seen as the generic young upstart as one of the President's aides. But when one would expect him to be motivated solely by personal ambition, he takes an ethical stand and works with the president rather than to usurp him.

And Shepherd and Wade are not the typical romantic comedy lover characters. For sure, their jobs define much of what makes them different and unique, but Wade's past and her sense of ethics makes for a compelling character. Similarly, Shepherd's refusal to mudsling, even in the face of Rumsom's attacks, makes him a truly compelling character that is unlike most politicians we see on screen. He has a very Capra-esque quality to him.

And Wade and Shepherd make for an intriguing couple that works. Their romance may be somewhat predictable, but the characters work well with one another and there is a very real sense of chemistry between them. It helps that Shepherd is quite presidential and Wade is quite self-motivated, making for two strong, opinionated characters to come together, which usually works quite well for a story.

Shepherd is played by Michael Douglas and for an actor who seems to be relegated to many roles with action and adventure subtexts, he pulls off being presidential in this with amazing quality and consistency. Douglas is nothing like, say, his performance in The Game (reviewed here!). He is rational, dignified and always in control. Even while Shepherd's poll numbers slip, Douglas maintains a strong backbone and the sense that he is ready to accomplish anything. He infuses the character with a true sense of fighting spirit, despite the almost complete departure from anything resembling a physical role in this part.

Similarly, Annette Bening gives another phenomenal performance as Sydney Ellen Wade. A tremendous departure from her neurotic, stressed out role in American Beauty (reviewed here!), Bening is articulate, collected and surprisingly normal as Wade. Indeed, the strength of her performance is that she takes the character who - on the page - could be fiery and overshadow the leader of the free world and instead tempers her performance with a very realistic quality of deference. Bening's strength is illustrated in her scenes where she plays Wade as a tough lobbyist and her humanity is illustrated by the way she softens - especially her facial expressions - when Wade and Shepherd begin their courting. Bening makes much of the film seem realistic as a conduit into the unreal world of Capitol Hill politics!

But more than that, the supporting actors are wonderful. The American President has a tremendous supporting cast which includes Martin Sheen, Richard Dreyfuss and Michael J. Fox. The actors are astounding and believable. They were perfectly cast and the film is just packed with talent.

They come together under the writing of Aaron Sorkin who has a ridiculously amazing control of the American English language. He knows how intelligent people speak and he creates a situation filled with intellectuals speaking fast and smart to each other. A fair number of the lines are packed with double meaning or deeper meanings or understandings. And the film holds up well over multiple viewings, even when you watch it one time right after another.

On DVD the film suffers from a lack of genuine bonus features. Sure, there's the trailer and a few production notes, but there are no commentaries, no featurettes, no flair. This is a film that deserves a better DVD treatment.

But this is an occasion where the strength of the material makes it easy to recommend, despite the limitations of the media it is presented in.

For other works with David Paymer, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Bad Teacher
In Good Company
Bounce
State And Main
Payback

9/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

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

The Sentinel Is A Thoroughly Average Thriller That Somehow Manages To Entertain

The Good: Decent acting, Good pacing
The Bad: Poor Editing/Direction, Thoroughly predictable, Eva Longoria Is A Nonentity
The Basics: While the cast and performances are good in this "protect the president" thriller, The Sentinel‘s direction is clunky and the plot is unsurprising.


Billing in movies often intrigues me. Billing, as you might know, is the order in which cast members are credited in a movie. Top billing is your biggest star, usually, or the one who is bearing the brunt of the acting in a film. There's billing above the title, which is reserved for your biggest stars, there's billing right after the title and there's final billing, which is often reserved for a prestigious actor who wanted to be set aside from the beginning but couldn't crack the first couple of billing spots (Victor Garber, for example, on Alias (reviewed here!) took final billing as opposed to being after Jennifer Garner and Ron Rifkin). From there, billing just goes into credited cast and sometimes that baffles me (how Andy Dick and Brent Spiner do not appear in the credits for Dude, Where's My Car? (reviewed here!) still weirds me out, unless Spiner was too embarrassed to be associated with the project, which I suppose is possible). Anyway, billing in movies almost entirely has to do with things outside the actual film experience, so it's something I don't usually focus on. With The Sentinel, though, billing once again came to my attention. Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland have top billing, before the title. Eva Longoria, who appears to be looking for a vehicle outside Desperate Housewives appears immediately after the title. Kim Basinger, who remains one of Hollywood's most weirdly credited actresses, is given final billing for a role far more substantial and important than Longoria's. Moreover, Basinger as First Lady Sarah Ballentine is more substantial and satisfying to watch (and possessing more airtime) than the role for which she won her Best Actress Oscar in L.A. Confidential (reviewed here!). So, part of what I want to open this review with is the concept that Basinger deserves a lot more credit for her role in The Sentinel and those looking for a real Eva Longoria performance are likely to be seriously disappointed.

The Secret Service of the United States of America, charged with protecting the President of the United States, appears to have a mole in it that is determined to kill the President. Pete Garrison, a veteran of the Service who once took a bullet for Reagan, is the prime suspect when the idea of a plot against the President is raised and he fails a polygraph. His former protege, David Breckinridge, is the lead investigator of the case and he bears a grudge against his former mentor. As David hunts Pete, Pete flees while trying to evade the real assassins and trying to expose the mole within the Secret Service.

The most serious problem with The Sentinel is simply that we've seen it before. This is a fairly unsurprising movie with plot and character resolutions that are oversimplified. This instantly reminds this reviewer of The Game (reviewed here!), another Michael Douglas thriller that failed to thrill because all of the significant twists and turns were entirely foreseeable to anyone familiar with the genre. Similarly, The Sentinel follows so closely in the tradition of movies like North By Northwest (reviewed here!) and The Negotiator as to be fairly predictable. In recent viewing, I think I was more entertained by 16 Blocks.

The thing is, I sat down ready and excited to see The Sentinel. By the end of the opening credits, I was already somewhat disconcerted. The editing is very choppy and not only in the opening sequence. The iconic problematic cut is the transition from the credits to the action of the movie. The camera pans up the White House and the american flag's bottom comes into view and the shot cuts back to a wide shot. It feels more sloppy than stylistic. A decent style could save a movie like this. But the direction from Clark Johnson is more problematic than intriguing.

The characters are generally well-presented. They are interesting and there is a sufficient amount of backstory with Pete and David and Pete and the First Lady to justify the animosities and affections portrayed. Sadly, there is not enough backstory to justify the loyalty Jill shows Pete as opposed to trusting her new boss David. Quirks like that are what keep knocking my impression of the movie down as I write this review.

The movie is well cast, with two exceptions. Eva Longoria adds nothing to the role of Jill. Her character is a nonentity in this movie and Longoria does nothing to break the character out of that mold. Similarly, David Rasche as President Ballentine is terrible casting. There is nothing distinctly or convincingly presidential about Rasche and his performance does nothing to convince the viewer of his status in the world. That's a huge drawback in a movie about protecting the president.

Conversely, Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, and Kim Basinger are all perfectly cast and give wonderful performances. I never would have guessed Basinger could pull off the role of First Lady, but she does it wonderfully. She is compelling, actually, as the distanced First Lady who feels detached from her husband. She makes so much of the movie's movement work.

Sutherland gives a performance that reminds us that he can be rational, something 24 does not give him too often of late (dude, stop torturing people for information! It doesn't work in real life!). Sutherland is cool, reasonable and efficient as David and he rules the scenes he's in without Douglas.

Michael Douglas gives a performance that is not distinctive (it is reminiscent of some of his other roles, like his performance in The Game), but that he does quite well. Douglas is reasonable and his portrayal of an investigator who is methodical and intelligent is entirely plausible. He keeps the movie working, even when the direction is falling down or the plot is foreseeable.

All in all, this movie was engaging enough to keep me awake to watch it. That's why I'm ultimately recommending it. It has just enough to make it worth watching, if not enough to make one want to own it. Just be prepared for it to not surprise you.

For other political thrillers, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Salt
Wall Street
The Informant!

6.5/10

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

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

Traffic Is An Eloquent Argument Against The War On Drugs

The Good: Excellent acting, Good rendering of various cultures in the drug conflict, direction!
The Bad: Inconsistent characterization, Pacing near the end, Unrelenting tone of futility
The Basics: A searing look at the drug trade and the effort to combat it, Traffic follows several people in their conflicts with drugs.


It's hard to make a good drug movie; if a film advocates drugs, it usually illustrates it poorly, using specious reasoning for the legalization of drugs and if a film speaks out against drugs, it's viewed as conservative, out of touch or a ridiculous "Hallmark Movie of the Week" for kids. It's a shame that Traffic is rated R, because this could be the best film to show in classrooms to the defiant young people who fail to believe in the consequences of drugs.

Traffic is a multi-layered story that follows various parts of the drug trade on the US/Mexico border. Montel Gordon and his partner Ray are DEA officers who are investigating Carlos, a heavy drug dealer who is ratted out by one of his minions. Carlos's wife, Helena, is feeling ostracized by her peers and wants the lifestyle she is accustomed to. In Mexico, Javier Rodriguez is being wooed by General Salazar, the chief force in the Mexican drug war combating production. Meanwhile, north of the border, Robert Wakefield is made the President's leader in the anti-drug effort in the United States. Wakefield's daughter, meanwhile, finds herself more and more addicted to heroin.

The plots weave together, with Wakefield's daughter ending up as a crack prostitute on the run from her father, Wakefield gets into a crisis of faith as his professional responsibilities conflict with his need to hold his family together. Javier, realizes that Salazar is not what he seems and attempts to inform the U.S. authorities of the danger in Mexico. And Montel works hard to keep Eduardo while Helena takes over Carlos's business and attempts to get her husband freed.

The biggest problem with Traffic is the failure to repeat character names. I spent the film referring to Montel as "Don Cheadle's character." Salazar, Javier and Javier's partner Manolo, are the only characters who have their names repeated enough to actually remember. It's irksome, especially considering how very many characters there are in this movie.

Traffic is the best inditement against drug use and the drug trade to come down the pike, well, ever. First, the leading power in the anti-drug trade, Robert Wakefield, continues to address the biggest problem, treating the addiction and ending the marketplace for drug use. Add to that, Javier illustrates the functional problem in the fight against the drug trade; a lack of a unified front between U.S. and Mexican enforcement agencies. The arguments are presented eloquently in the less-preachy form of a narrative and it works very well that way.

Moreover, the film is not biased completely against the drug trade; Helena's plot clearly illustrates the benefit of being in drug distribution. She has quite the lifestyle and it's extravagant. But the film is wickedly intelligent, illustrating the risks of that lifestyle very well.

Finally, the interrogations Montel and Ray go through with the rat from Carlos's organization, reveal the tired arguments for why drugs ought to be legalized and the futility of the drug fight. In truth, the only one that sticks by the end of the film is the idea that the budget used to fight drugs could instantly be turned into a tax cow for the government if legalized. The health aspects are shown with the clever parallel plot with Wakefield's daughter. The lifestyle she sinks into is quite unflattering and a real eye opener.

The direction works wonderfully. Steven Soderbergh's direction is incredible. His use of contrasting color and unflattering light acts as a motif that furthers the ambiguity and harshness of the war on drugs. The bright yellows of Mexico appear as a violent, natural contrast to the artificial blue light that characterizes the U.S. scenes.

But Traffic isn't a preachy film. It packs the screen with great actors who are working well. Of course, Michael Douglas, is great as Wakefield, lending the role strength and dignity that makes him such a natural actor for government roles. Benicio Del Toro is great as Javier, playing the rogue Mexican police officer. He's far more comprehensible than any other film I've seen him in.

The film's best acting comes from Don Cheadle. He takes on a strong dramatic role in Traffic. He plays Montel as a man with great inner strength and a wonderful physical presence. He's in the best shape of the cast and it makes sense that he would be the one running and jumping and such. His dialog is great, laid back body language fits his character perfectly.

In the end, Traffic is a compelling film that follows all angles of the drug trade and it does it with style, even if near the end it begins to drag in terms of plot.

For other works with Luis Guzman, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Old Dogs
He’s Just Not That Into You
Yes Man
Fast Food Nation
Waiting . . .
Punch-Drunk Love
Magnolia
Snake Eyes
NYPD Blue - Season 1

8/10

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

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

I Allowed Myself To Get Excited About Haywire And Rediscovered Utter Disappointment.

The Good: Acting
The Bad: No real plot, Terrible editing/direction, No real character development.
The Basics: Haywire is a surprisingly disappointing series of chases and fights that does not add up to much of anything.


Tonight, my wife and I had a date night for the first time in several weeks. She wanted to treat me to a movie and I actually put off the offer until this week. There was nothing in the local theaters that I wanted to see until this week, so we went to see Haywire tonight. Earlier today, the film got a boost in my mind when I learned that it was written by one of the writers of Dark City (reviewed here!), which is one of my favorite movies. After all of the advertisements for it, all I truly knew about Haywire was that the film had an amazing cast and it had something to do with spies.

Honestly, after seeing the film, that's pretty much all I know about the film. This was hardly one of Lem Dobbs' successes and one suspects that even Steven Soderbergh fans will be largely unimpressed by it. Haywire is basically a random collection of fight scenes and chase scenes held together by rather preposterous bits of plot exposition. And there is something appropriate about how the film opens and ends with the word "Shit."

And I went into the film excited, looking forward to the movie!

Mallory is sitting in a diner when she see Aaron coming. She knows Aaron from a mission she was on a few days prior in Barcelona and when he tries to force her to come with him, she breaks his arm and flees with a private citizen, a young man named Scott. As Scott and Mallory drive off to evade law enforcement, Mallory tells Scott her story.

Mallory worked with Aaron in Barcelona on a covert mission to rescue a captured whistleblower. Turning Jiang over to Rodrigo, Mallory thinks her work is done and she prepares to leave the company she executed contracts with. But her boss and former lover, Kenneth, has one last mission for her. The night Mallory returned from Barcelona, she is retasked to Dublin to meet with Paul. Paul quickly proves he cannot be trusted and when he tries to kill Mallory, Mallory manages to turn the tables on him. She contacts Kenneth's employer and tries to return home, searching for the truth as she goes.

I honestly wish that I had more to write about Haywire but this is one of those films that I am baffled was made based on the fact that there seem to be large gaps in the story that are filled with Mallory running or getting into an extended altercation. The running gets old and occupies several minutes of multiple scenes. Similarly, the fights are some of the most choreographed fights in recent cinema. The bigger problem with the fights is that director Steven Soderbergh does not cut the fight sequences very well. So, during at least two of the knock-down drag out fights, there are noticeably bad cuts where two takes were melded less than seamlessly. I'm talking, mid-kick the film cuts to another take!

Also bad is the sound editing. In addition to having background conversations that are inappropriately loud in some of the quiet scenes, some of the dialogue is seriously garbled. Channing Tatum, who plays Aaron, mumbles his way through virtually all of his lines. While I want to say that this robs the viewer of valuable information, that would imply that the movie is actually intended to be about an elaborate conspiracy in the spy community. In actuality, the conspiracy that links the scenes together is more of a pretense to make the film. The truth is, Haywire is just the a bunch of fights and chases that have a plot as an afterthought.

Sadly, the film is also similarly light on character development. What irked me almost instantly was that Michael Fassbender's Paul is characterized as a spy of the same caliber as Mallory. And yet, she is nowhere near as smart or cunning as Mallory. While Mallory utilizes the first opportunity he leaves his equipment around to spy on her new partner, Paul neither catches her intrusions, nor appears to execute any machinations of his own. Given that all these characters are supposed to exist in the same industry at the same high skill level, it is frustrating to see some of them playing on a completely different level. This does not make Mallory more heroic, it simply makes it seem like she is seriously more competent than her adversaries.

What Haywire does have is a decent cast and most of the acting is good, at the very least. Gina Carano is interesting and credibly fit as Mallory. She is eminently watchable as Mallory and she sells the action scenes fairly well. Michael Angarano plays Scott and there is some irony to his role in Haywire. The irony comes from the fact that Angarano plays a character virtually identical in characterization and mannerisms as Scott Speedman's character in Underworld (reviewed here!). Actually, the car chase sequence in Haywire reminded me strongly of a similar scene in Underworld and it has been years since I saw that movie!

The rest of the performances are very average with great actors like Michael Douglas, Antonio Bandaras and Ewan McGregor performing well within their established bounds. Michael Fassbender takes a serious step back in his rise to a-list by presenting a depressingly listless performance as Paul. Channing Tatum, similarly, does fine as a secret agent type, though we have seen him in a similar role before.

In the end, Haywire is nowhere near as good as its previews. Instead, this is a movie that feels like one long, boring trailer that drags out for full feature length

For other spy movies, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Unknown
The Bourne Identity

2.5/10

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

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

Worse Than We Had Predicted, Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past Is Unredeemably Bad!

The Good: Soundtrack
The Bad: Acting, Plot predictability, Direction, Character development, Continuity contradictions.
The Basics: Utterly unredeemable, Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past is a terrible film that reinforces negative stereotypes about women and treats men badly, too. No entertainment value.


My wife and I have different tastes in movies, but it seems like lately I have been picking more winners. Indeed, she was concerned she would fall asleep during X-Men Origins: Wolverine, yet squeezed my hand at all of the shocking moments and after begrudging me (quietly) the two hour drive and hour wait in line to a screening of Star Trek eagerly talked about it with me and anyone who would listen. But from the previews, she was eager to see Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past. As she observed afterward, "even people who went in with low expectations will be disappointed."

She is right; I went in figuring that the best moments were in the trailer and the irony of that is that some of the best moments stay in the trailer. The trailers had moments cut from the final film and the result is even less funny than the concept. But if you want to save yourself time and money, here is the simplest possible explanation of Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past: women are idiots and sluts, men are dogs who refuse to take responsibility for their actions. That's not me saying that, it is the message that comes through loud and clear in the film and those who like good chick flicks will cringe at how bad this is both as a "chick flick" and as a film in general.

Connor Mead is a photographer who shoots women in their underwear and who is not tied to any one woman. In fact, as he works to seduce a new singer, he breaks up with his three latest prior conquests, then abandons his latest chick for his brother's wedding where he has bedded all but one of the bridesmaids in the past. As Connor tries to convince his brother, Paul, to flee marrying Sandra, he is reunited with the arguable love of his life, Jenny. Jenny continues to reject Connor and Connor looks to hook up with the last bridesmaid at the wedding.

This is when Connor and Paul's dead uncle Wayne appears to Connor and tells him he will be visited by three ghosts, who will teach him a lesson on love. Connor is soon visited by the Ghost of Girlfriends Past, who illustrates to him how poorly he has treated women, then reminds him of the relationship he had with Jenny and how he left after the first time they made love. As Connor wrestles with the understanding he might have left the love of his life walk out in the past, Paul and Sandra get cold feet and Connor must apply his newfound heart to saving the imperiled couple.

Sometimes, simplest is best: Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past is stupid and insulting. My apparent generalization before is, unfortunately, not a generalization. Women in the film are treated atrociously and the men are little better, but certainly no worse. There is an undertone of misogyny in the way Connor treats women like objects, but they not only let him, they encourage him. Then they act like surprised idiots when he abandons them the way he abandoned everyone else. The height of this sickness is arguably reached at the beginning when the new up-and-coming superstar witnesses Connor treat three women poorly, encourages him to bed her and allows herself to be seduced with the line "come to papa" (which is much grosser in context than it sounds out of). This, however, is "arguably" the low point for women being treated badly by themselves (because, again, women in this film are sluts and/or idiots) because later a woman responds to Uncle Wayne by approaching him with the line, "She might not be into that kind of thing, but I am!"

But the most important idiot, er, woman, is Jenny. Jenny appears as a strong female character from the outset, rejecting Connor and keeping him at arm's length. We soon see why; despite a childhood together, when she rejected Connor at a middle school dance, Connor became a misogynistic dog. Ten years later, he woos her only to leave her. The stupidity here in Jenny takes the form that she let him in to begin with, despite correctly analyzing his tendencies, and that she still pines for him now. Jenny's whole catchphrase throughout the movie in relation to Connor is "not as dumb as he looks, folks." The problem is, Jenny IS! Seeing him again turns Jenny into mush, which helps reinforce the old concept that women want the bad boy and the project.

This is, unfortunately, not the only message being reinforced throughout the movie. The positive message is a remarkably conservative "fidelity pays off and everyone ends up with who they are 'supposed' to" message, all within a heterosexual and ethnically conservative sensibility. As a result, as the movie ends with people pairing off, the film's two most recognizable ethnic characters make a love connection and the viewer is afforded one final cringe in a movie filled with them. Sandra is a neurotic caricature of a bride and this reinforces, like many of the movie's other messages, that women live entirely for the bridal day and that this is the socially appropriate way for them to be . . . neurotic.

As well, men are dogs, but that is okay as long as someday they settle down. This is reinforced pretty obviously by Connor and Uncle Wayne, but the more troubling message is that men refuse to take responsibility for their actions. Connor only bucks this trend in the final moments of the movie, but his character is such a ridiculous trainwreck anyway (I'd mention the specific moment in the last minutes that was so ridiculous that it did not fit, but I'd ruin it for the one person reading who did not see the movie trailer, because the trailer DID show virtually the entire movie) that it is hard to care.

The most problematic aspect of Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past is that the Dickensian message being spread in it is unfortunately inapplicable in the specific circumstances. Connor is learning a Very Valuable Lesson about the strength of love. He learns the lesson in time to try to save the romance between Sandra and Paul and pursue Jenny at arguably the last moment he will have to get her. The thing is, Sandra and Paul's romance is beleaguered on the eve of their wedding not because they suddenly learn a new fact about each other, but because their fundamentals are not solid and that fact upsets Sandra to a ridiculous extent. In other words, Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past annoyingly supports a romance that is not firm enough to survive on its own because it is not a decent romance. Only in the movies do people lie to one another up to the wedding day, have a real conflict about that and salvage the wedding day. In the real world, people come clean early, delay the wedding or don't get married, more often than films show any of those consequences.

As for the acting, this is not the Jennifer Garner of Catch And Release and my wife is convinced that Matthew McConaughey is trying to be Adam Sandler in his role as Connor Mead. Either way, they have utterly no chemistry on screen. The only other noteworthy acting comment would be that Lacey Chabert appears to be contractually obligated to give her teeth screen time in every moment of the film. No performer in this film ought to be proud of the final result.

There are a few good lines in Ghosts Of Girlfriends Past, but for every good line, there is a cringer and one that reinforces a negative stereotype. And for those who want to write it off as "just a movie," I'd argue this is how prejudice, sexism, misogyny and outdated gender roles persist. Of course, keeping women dumb and skanky works for those dogly men, so . . .

For other films with Emma Stone, please check out my reviews of:
The Help
Crazy Stupid Love.
Friends With Benefits
Easy A
Marmaduke
Zombieland

1.5/10

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

© 2011, 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Writers Of Yore, Movies Of Today: Wonder Boys Is A Good Film!

The Good: Funny, Witty, Insightful, Well-acted, Good script, Intelligent
The Bad: Main protagonist's affect, Cliche in points
The Basics: Excellent acting, interesting characters, and a reasonably good plot contribute to an all around wonderful film with Wonderboys!


Lately, I've found myself enjoying movies that involved people creating things. I have a real love, for example, of movies about writers, politicians and creative people. While some of the best of them are very new, like The Social Network (click here for that review!), others are a bit older, like Gods And Monsters (click here for my review!). One of the other ones I stumbled upon a few years ago was a movie less about creation and more the inability to. That movie was Wonderboys and it was surprisingly good.

Grady Tripp is a man with a problem. Fortunately, it's not a terribly difficult problem for the viewer to diagnose; Grady is a writer whose first and last novel was a critical success seven years before and no one has seen his second novel. We see Grady typing or considering the novel and each time, he feints.

Grady is surrounded by eccentrics in his midlife crisis, which is the weekend of the local bookfest. Grady has been left by his wife that very morning, this time for good. Apparently, this is a regular habit, or so his mistress, the chancellor of the college where Grady works, says. Sara, despite her love for Grady, is still in love with her pompous husband and spends the weekend debating which man is better for her. Fortunately, at no time does she threaten either of the men in her life's job.

Unfortunately, the same may not be said for Grady. While at a party at Chancellor/mistress Sara's house, Grady encourages his deeply introverted student, James Leer, to express himself. Unfortunately, the pep talk results in Grady getting bitten by Sara's husband's dog and James killing it. This is pretty much of the extent of the plot, though there is also intermingled Hannah, Grady's student border who has obvious designs on him, and Terry Crabtree, Grady's editor who is determined to see Grady's second novel. Terry often comes along with Grady and James on their misadventures into the weekend of self-discovery.

Wonderboys succeeds for most of the film, that is, so long as it's exploring the connections between the various characters, it's a winner. It's truly significant and wonderful. As Grady grills James Leer about his past and tries to figure the dour kid out, we, the viewer, are intrigued. It's fun, it's interesting and it's relevant. The people are realistic and intriguing.

Only when the film tries to make conclusions, to resolve itself, does it fail to satisfy. None of the characters rise above their origins in the conclusion.

However, up until that, there is a lot to enjoy. The cast is excellent. The writing is particularly strong, the dialogue is highly realistic. The voiceovers, as Grady narrates the film, are sharp and precise. I'm usually annoyed by voiceovers. I wasn't here.

Michael Douglas is fantastic as Grady, James Leer is expertly played by Toby Maguire. The true scene stealers are Robert Downey Jr. and Frances McDormand. Downey Jr. plays Crabtree with quirky grace and precision. McDormand plays Sara in one of the most interesting and well-acted roles in the film. She is obviously tormented and conflicted and McDormand plays those emotions up perfectly.

I have a beef with the cliche of the writers using drugs and alcohol. That and the ending are the only detractions I could find with the film. So, in short, it's worth seeing. It truly is.

For other films with Michael Douglas, please check out my reviews of:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
The Game
Wall Street

8/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page!

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


| | |

A Remarkable Game: The Game Holds Up Over The Years.

The Good: Excellent Acting, Good Directing, Good character development, Intelligently Written
The Bad: Unsurprising to a trained eye.
The Basics: Intelligent, Quickly-paced, expertly acted, The Game has suspense and entertainment down pat!


Every now and then, two films come out too close together and the latter one suffers. Alien 3 was seen as too derivative of Terminator 2 (especially in the end). Similarly, Star Trek First Contact and Alien Resurrection had endings too close for comfort. In the case of The Game, the film suffers for genre fans due to an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine entitled "Move Along Home." If you're not that into other media, other shows, that sort of thing and haven't seen "Move Along Home," you're fine. You're going to love The Game. It will catch you by surprise, it will make you happy to see because it is an atypical Hollywood thriller. The Game successfully jerks around the viewer. It's pretty fabulous. If you've seen "Move Along Home" or anything similar, The Game is better.

The Game follows Nick Van Orton, wealthy investment banker. I mean, so rich he makes most people look like beggars. He's in that top .5%. He has a loser brother, Conrad, who gives him a birthday gift, a game from Consumer Recreation Services. CRS gives Nick a test that begins his game. Shortly thereafter, CRS implants a clown in his house and his game is underway. He then is accosted by people dying, a woman who pleas ignorance, guns, dead bodies, drugs, pornography and a vandalized house. He's drugged and wakes up in Mexico, he is sent in a taxi into a river and other things that may or may not be fun.

The film is truly about the power of standardized testing. Honestly. CRS gives Nick a series of tests. From those tests, they determine what is lacking in Nick's life. They are able to anticipate his moves, his motivations, all from the test. It all makes sense. The right test with the right analysis team can understand a person perfectly. The Game seeks to prove that.

The magic of The Game is that everything fits. Michael Douglas is perfectly cast as Nick. His natural intensity works perfectly in the character of a stressed out investment banker. He's confused and lost and trying to make order to an emotive world. Douglas plays that perfectly. The supporting cast of Sean Penn and Deborah Unger, who plays Christine, work quite well to round out the story, adding suspense and confusion. The pace is perfectly executed with everything timed perfectly. It has a wonderful rising action, it speeds along with excellent precision and just when it seems like the film is bordering on being tired, it ends.

The quality of the writing is superb. CRS leaves clues all around and the perceptive viewer finds them. All of the elements of the game come together without any real loose ends. The film is quite tightly woven and that there is an actual denouement works wonderful!

Why watch The Game? It's suspenseful, intelligent, well acted and has characters that read as very real. The supporting cast is excellent. And, rarely, the pieces come together in a way that everything makes sense. In all, the film is fun. It makes you want to keep watching. And, even if you've seen something like it before, you've not seen this. It's worth it.

On DVD, The Game now comes with a commentary track from director David Fincher as well as featurettes on the making of the movie.

For other movies that bend reality, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
Shutter Island
Dark City

9/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page!

© 2010, 2007, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Campy Dialogue, Still Timely Message: Wall Street Illustrates The Consequences Of Capitalism

The Good: Great acting, Interesting setting, Decent direction, Great DVD presentation, Engaging plot
The Bad: Some very campy dialogue, Somewhat predictable plot progression.
The Basics: Generally, Oliver Stone's indictment of the mindset of day traders and the ridiculously rich survives the test of time with Wall Street!


As audiences flock to the theaters to see Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (click here for my review!), I decided it was a good time for me to rewatch the original Wall Street. I had seen Wall Street back when I was in middle school and the truth is, I never thought about watching it again until I saw the movie posters for the sequel. It was not that Wall Street is bad, but it was not as memorable as many other movies I've seen or even that Oliver Stone has directed. Upon picking up and watching Wall Street on DVD in the new "20th Anniversary" two-disc set, I found myself underwhelmed by the film that many seem to hold up as one of the greats.

This is not to say that Wall Street is bad. But it certainly is dated. In fact, the reliance on jargon and the dated elements - design, filming, social attitudes - make the film an unfortunate jumble. To wit, while seeing the styles of the 1980s in interior design and the computer screens around the offices in the stockbroker scenes lends Wall Street a great sense of authenticity for the time. But then, in those same scenes when Bud Fox and his coworker Marvin are talking to one another and on the phone, the script is so loaded with jargon that is specific, over-the-top and unfathomable from context that it alienates the audience. In other words, while Oliver Stone and co-writer Stanley Weiser may have gotten the sound of stockbrokers in the 1980s down perfectly, the niche is so small that the audience is not likely to appreciate the time spent with characters bandying back and forth with lines that they cannot comprehend.

That said, outside the timely aspect of Wall Street and the dated portions that clearly capture 1985 and the sense of the economy and social mores in relation to investments, labor and ethics, the film actually illustrates a timeless tale of the seduction of a young stock broker into the world of high finance. There is a Faustian sense to the movie and Wall Street uses its setting well to explore a pretty timeless tale of the corruption of a brilliant young mind.

Bud Fox is a stockbroker working in a big firm in New York City in 1985, trying to land his big break investing for others by cold calling through a phone list. Each day, he calls Gordon Gekko and is blocked by Gekko's secretary. Determined, on Gekko's birthday, he arrives at Gordon's office with a gift and is granted five minutes of the investor's time. As the meeting begins to illustrate Gekko's disinterest in Fox and the few tips he has, Bud Fox reveals to Gekko that Blue Star Airlines is going to get a favorable ruling from the FAA, which will likely launch the stock and allow the airline to truly invest in expansion. Gekko explores the option, invests and begins to use Bud Fox as part of his investment team.

With a million dollars to invest, Bud Fox begins to invest to make Gordon Gekko and himself a lot of money (and strategically lose money). To keep ahead of the competition, Gekko has Fox spying on other businessmen, like Sir Larry Wildman, to get to sweet investments before Wildman can make them. As Bud Fox becomes more successful, Gekko provides him with perks like prostitutes and an ex-girlfriend Darien. The success alienates Fox from his union father, at Blue Star, and when Gordon Gekko looks to liquidate Blue Star, Bud Fox has to make a difficult choice about what is important to him.

There is a reason Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was made and that, quite simply, comes down to Gordon Gekko. The character is so delightfully bad that it was a well that went undertapped in Wall Street. Because Wall Street focuses so much on Bud Fox and his relentless pursuit of Gordon Gekko and the high life, Gekko's own character and life outside his financial dealings are seldom explored. Wall Street has a great dramatic villain in Gordon Gekko and the desire to revisit such a character makes perfect sense to me.

Despite the intrigue that surrounds a character who is almost inhuman like Gordon Gekko, Wall Street truly is Bud Fox's film. Wall Street chronicles his seduction, his interest and his motivations more than those of Gordon Gekko. Indeed, Gekko's goal is to simply make money and maintain, which is hardly interesting in a cinematic sense. But Bud Fox is truly about changing his entire life and lifestyle and an interesting argument could be made about who is using who more in Wall Street. After all, Gordon Gekko does not seek out Bud Fox; he is utterly disinterested in Fox until Fox uses his insider information to profit Gekko. But Fox needs Gekko to make his own dreams come true and the relentless pursuit of the lifestyle Gordon lives is pretty disheartening - at least for anticapitalists.

Wall Street succeeds, then, more on the strength of the performances and the classic themes than on the characters or even the use of the setting. Martin Sheen, for example, gives a wonderful supporting performance as Bud Fox's father. For me, it was delightful to see Sheen and Douglas on screen together - I had just rewatched The American President a few days prior! The scene Douglas and Martin Sheen share is loaded with great body language performances and seeing the two acting titans playing opposite characters brings out the best in both. Saul Rubinek and Daryl Hannah also provide decent supporting roles and, as a fan of Boston Legal, it was delightful to see a young James Spader in a supporting role as a lawyer friend of Bud Fox. In fact, the truncated storyline with his character could have used a little more fleshing out as opposed to the romance between Darien and Bud.

Michael Douglas won an Oscar for his portrayal of Gordon Gekko and this set off a long string of roles for Douglas where he plays characters who are either morally ambiguous or outright evil. Douglas has a great intensity to him and while in the role of Gordon Gekko he spits some of his most venomous lines with such a heavy amount of jargon as to make them almost incomprehensible, he sells the role on sheer charisma and force of character. He delivers Gekko's lines with an uncompromising quality that is absolutely convincing. Gekko is one of Michael Douglas's roles where we stop seeing Douglas and we only see Gekko.

Almost as good, believe it or not, is the role of Bud Fox for Charlie Sheen. While some might argue that a workaholic playboy is hardly a stretch for Charlie Sheen, Sheen has a steely set to his eyes in many of the scenes that make it plausible that he could have gotten to his starting position using hard work, dedication and charisma. At the same time, despite not being fleshed out with a set of dreams of his own (Bud Fox enables Darien some), the goals he does have seem to make him predisposed toward the type of seduction Gordon Gekko represents. Sheen actually plays perfectly for those vulnerabilities. There are moments Sheen brings weakness into the eyes and shoulder set of Bud Fox that make his failings entirely realistic.

On DVD, Wall Street comes with a pretty impressive (especially for this type drama) two-disc special edition. Alongside the primary film, there is a commentary track which notes the context of the film, as well as shooting issues and is enjoyable for fans of Oliver Stone's works. The second disc has featurettes, deleted scenes and the movie's original trailers. There are a few hours of entertainment and education which will delight fans.

But ultimately, Wall Street is just a classic tale put in a relatively new setting and those who despise greed and corruption will likely squirm through more of the movie than they will enjoy.

For other dramatic films, please check out my reviews of:
Shutter Island
Strawberry And Chocolate
The Spitfire Grill

8/10

For other film reviews, please check out my index page!

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



| | |

A Sequel Too Smart For Summer Starts Fall Movie Season With Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

The Good: Good story, Good acting, Good characters
The Bad: Pacing, Some jargon.
The Basics: While a little slow in parts, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps returns Gordon Gekko to freedom and he sets his sights on reconciling his broken relationship with his daughter.


As summer winds to a close with inane comedies and dramas that would not hold their own during the spectacle times of Summer Blockbuster Season, I find myself - like many movie reviewers - in a lull until the Christmas Blockbuster push and Oscar Pandering Season. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps promises to buck the trend of the September Slump.

When I first saw the movie poster for Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, I thought, "That's an odd choice for a sequel" and "I can't wait for Shia LaBeouf's bubble to pop!" But as inane comedies hit theaters alongside back-to-school date movies, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps offers a very different option for movie viewers and it is an option moviegoers ought to exercise. It has been years since I watched Wall Street, but the film catches the viewer right up with the important aspects of that film in order to watch this blind. However, for those who want to be surprised by Wall Street (click here for my review!), they must stop reading now. It is impossible to discuss Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps without referencing the consequences of the end of Wall Street. That said . . .

After years in prison, white collar criminal Gordon Gekko is paroled for his abuses of Wall Street trading and he finds himself unable to work in the financial markets again. Even so, by 2008, he sees a the bloated market and attempts to warn those still in financial power that a downturn is coming, but is ostracized at virtually every turn. He sees his “in,” however, with Jacob. Jacob is a young investment banker who is working his way up at Keller Zabel. Idealistic, he is troubled because he begins to suspect rival investment banker Brenton James of corrupt activities, but is unable to prove it. Gordon enters his life when Jake introduces himself at a lecture, as Gordon's daughter's fiancé. Winnie, Gordon's daughter, still loathes Gordon and the ever-calculating Gordon sees helping Jake as a step on the road to redemption with his daughter.

But soon, Brenton James – the manager of  Churchill-Schwartz, where Jake goes to work after Keller Zabel collapses – begins covering his tracks well and he reveals himself to be a virtual disciple of Gordon’s “greed is good” ideals. With Gordon pulling the strings, Jacob works to prove just how corrupt James truly is.

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is the movie Oliver Stone’s other film, W. should have been. W. was a character study that failed to truly explore or extrapolate the consequences of one man’s actions. By contrast, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is almost entirely about consequences and Stone beats the viewer over the head with that idea. James is suffering the consequences of (allegedly) driving Lewis Zabel to his death, Gordon is suffering the consequences of his manipulations of the market and Bud Fox, Winnie is suffering the consequences of lacking a father figure for so many years. But even as Jacob works to prove Bretton James’ crimes, he moralizes about what getting in bed with Gordon actually means and he, arguably, is the one most aware of the potential negative consequences of his actions.

The brilliance of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is not that director Oliver Stone and writers Allan Loeb and Stephen Schiff keep one guessing about whether or not prison has truly reformed Gordon Gekko or not. Gordon is Gordon and manipulation is what he does. From almost his first scene, the viewer knows he is up to something and it does not take long for that to start to be made explicit in ways that are enjoyable to watch. The initial confrontation between Gordon and Winnie gives Gordon a wonderful goal: to try to get back in his daughter’s good graces. From the moment Gordon sets his mind to that, the brilliance of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is not that Gordon is reformed, it is how he uses the same influences and manipulations to achieve a personal goal that he used to achieve his professional goals. In other words, no matter how bad Bretton James is supposed to be, Gordon Gekko’s manipulations always have at least as seedy a sensibility to them.

And, because of the Jacob/Bretton plot, there is plenty of money changing hands and financial information being spewed about. And this, naturally, puts Gordon Gekko close to the field that he is legally prevented from entering.  It also leaves many viewers confused by the jargon. It is unsurprising how Gordon manipulates Jake in the same arena and one of the saving graces of the movie is that even while it is bogged down with exploring the idea of consequences, it also explores the basic human desire for revenge. When Jake loses Zabel, something in him does snap to the irrational and the exploration of the drive to right the wrong makes his character interesting, even when the viewer feels he is just a puppet to Gordon.

Michael Douglas reprises his role of Gordon Gekko for Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps and he is able to humanize the character some by playing off his own charm, especially in early scenes between Jake and Gordon. But during key monologues, Douglas re-establishes the charisma and coldness that made Gordon such a great villain in Wall Street and there is an unbroken strength to the character and the performance that resonates quite strongly.

As for Shia LaBeouf, this is arguably his best work since he played Richie Lupone as a kid on The X-Files. Yes, I go that far back for a time I liked LaBeouf’s performance, but as Jacob he brings a detachment and stiffness that actually works wonderfully for making him seem to be a credible member of the financial community. In fact, his weakest moments are those when he has to be credibly in love with Carey Mulligan’s Winnie Gekko. LaBeouf may not sell the basic human love connection, but he performs well with the jargon surrounding both money and revenge. And the movie does have a lot of jargon to it.

Carey Mulligan is arguably the human heart of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps. She plays an adult level of hurt beautifully and she holds her own for screen presence against Michael Douglas. Josh Brolin, Charlie Sheen and Frank Langella give memorable supporting or cameo performances (Sheen’s appearance is rather minor) that tie together the world of the Wall Street films quite well.

Ultimately, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps is a split movie that only truly comes together in the final scenes. It is half a revenge story with a wounded young man pairing with a master manipulator, it is half a financial story of the consequences of rampant greed. But ultimately, the film is about the dehumanizing nature of unrestrained capitalism and that is as poignant today as it was twenty-plus years ago.

For other movies featuring Michael Douglas, please check out my reviews of:
Wonder Boys
The Game

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page!

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


<><><><>| | |