Stylish And Stupid: War On Everyone Does Not Quite Live Up!

The Good: Decent performances, Good direction
The Bad: Mediocre characters, Not overly funny, Blase plot
The Basics: War On Everyone follows two corrupt cops on their criminal venture to rip off a major crime ring.


Every now and then, there is a film where the basic plot summary completely sells me on the idea. The concept of a comedy with Alexander Skarsgard where he plays a corrupt cop who is blackmailing criminals sounds like a potential winner to me. The film is War On Everyone and it continues the trend of crime-themed comedies, like Observe And Report (reviewed here!). While violent, as this style of movie tends to be, it is not so graphic that it guts the humor when the film goes for laughs.

Unfortunately, War On Everyone plays for an unfortunately low sense of humor in a caper comedy that could have been much better. Having a corrupt cop criticizing the spelling on a homeless kid's begging sign is actually fairly funny, but it comes on the heels of homophobic, transphobic musings and jokes that play off a particularly flat joke making fun of a bald jockey. The result is an unfortunately inconsistent film that never quite lands.

Opening with Terry and Bob running down a mime who is involved with a robbery, Terry and Bob are revealed to be police officers and partners. Neither, however, are upstanding citizens - Terry drives drunk and is constantly scratching because he has thrush, Bob assaulted a fellow officer following a racist comment by a fellow cop and swears at his children. The two return to the Albuquerque Police Department following their suspension and go back on the street where they snort some cocaine with a snitch whom they want to help them rip off a major crime ring.

Terry and Bob begin a search for the crime boss, Reynard, who is at the center of the impending caper. To that end, they visit a strip club, rip off a petty criminal, and start executing criminals who are working for the elusive crime boss Lord James Mangan. When Reggie flees town after the pair rough up a suspect, Terry and Bob head from New Mexico to Iceland to try to get the million dollars they think Reggie took with him. There, they learn about Mangan and they return to New Mexico to learn there are new charges pending against them and they begin the search for Mangan in Albuquerque. After Terry takes in the son of a suspect who killed her own husband, he is abducted by Mangan's men and when an attempt is made on Bob's life, the pair realize they might be in over their heads.

War On Everyone never quite settles on committing to being funny, which is unfortunate because the film gets high marks for style. The musical selections, the film's direction, sets and set dressings are pretty well-executed and they pair nicely with lines that allude to the fact that Terry and Bob have a lot of knowledge outside their expertise on how to get away with everything short of murder. Terry knows a lot about music, Bob makes references to Steven Soderberg, writer and director John Michael McDonagh clearly tried to prevent the protagonists from being flat, monolithically bad people.

But the problem with writing antiheroes and corrupt characters for protagonists is that there has to be something likable about them and neither Terry, nor James ever get there. The film's attempts to use racism for humor does not quite land - save the joke about Reggie being exceptionally easy to find in Iceland because he's a black man in Iceland. McDonagh seems to try to balance that by having Terry having sex with a black woman, but the humor surrounding dialogue about different ethnicities is played as too angry to be ever truly funny.

One of the high points of War On Everyone is seeing Malcolm Barrett in the role of Reggie. Barrett performs Reggie without any of the off-putting humor that made him hilarious as Lem in Better Off Ted (Season 1 reviewed here!). In War On Everyone, Barrett is physically wired and he plays the role with an energy that is palpable and engaging to watch; he steals every scene he is in.

War On Everyone is led by Alexander Skarsgard and Michael Pena. Skarsgard, obviously, has the physical performance for playing a violent cop down perfectly from his time on True Blood (reviewed here!) and Michael Pena continues to deliver his perfect sense of comic timing for his lines as Bob. But neither Skarsgard, nor Pena are able to make their characters remotely likable and as hard as it is to imagine, the scenes they share with Paul Reiser (the police chief in the film) lead to them being overshadowed by the veteran comic. That said, Pena and Skarsgard play off one another masterfully for their banter, especially in the scenes where their characters are being called on the carpet by Reiser's Stanton.

The death knell of War On Everyone comes subtly, in the middle of the film. Around the middle of the film, I consciously realized that I did not care at all about how the movie would be resolved. The lack of ability to invest in the characters, the situation or even the bizarre caper they find themselves embroiled in makes War On Everyone more of a flop than a success and a film that is impossible to recommend.

For other movies currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Underworld: Blood Wars
Passengers
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

3.5/10

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

© 2017 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

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.
| | |

Not The Movie Of The Year, Incredible Acting Saves The Formulaic American Hustle!

The Good: Incredible acting, Some entertaining one-liners, Effects (costumes, soundtrack)
The Bad: Entirely predictable genre plot, Lack of thematic resonance
The Basics: While American Hustle is entertaining and worth watching, it lacks a sense of enduring greatness beyond the performances to make it a reasonable contender during Oscar Pandering Season.


As we reach the end of the year, films being released are designed to pander to the short memory of the Academy voters. While in recent years there have been a few films nominated for Best Picture that were not released in the post-Thanksgiving Oscar Pandering Season, the majority of films nominated for Best Picture still are released in November and December and this year, perhaps the most obvious attempt to bait Oscar voters is American Hustle. American Hustle has the flash of Oscarbait in its direction, costumes, and sense of humor, backed by the substance of a quintet of performers that the Academy has shown quite a bit of love for in recent years (Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner).

Unfortunately, what American Hustle lacks is a larger sense of theme and characters who make a statement. David O. Russell knows how to make a great film with deeper themes and meaning; he did it with Silver Linings Playbook (reviewed here!), which smartly worked its romantic plot to build to a larger statement on healing and the power love has to trump loss. It might seem ironic or contradictory that I, who openly advocated that Argo (reviewed here!) was worthy of the Best Picture Oscar last year and condemn the obvious frontrunner in Oscar Pandering Season this year for lacking themes. But Argo was more than a plot-based film that illustrated the resiliency of humanity; it became an implicit argument on the strength of pacifism and the power of resolve needed to nonviolently execute a nonviolent plan. American Hustle, however, is a con film. If you’ve seen two or three, you’ve seen pretty much all of them and sadly, despite the enjoyable nature of it, American Hustle does not buck that trend.

Irving Rosenfeld is a conman, so invested in his deceitful plans that his first major deception is to completely alter is face and physique. Disguising himself as a younger, more svelte man, Irving scams his marks successfully. Despite being married to Rosalyn, the transformed Irving discovers he has amazing chemistry with Sydney Prosser. Irving and Sydney work their scams together while having an affair. Their scams bring them to the attention of the ambitious Richie DiMaso, an FBI Agent who is looking to advance quickly by building a record of success by catching bigger fish than Irving and Sydney. To that end, DiMaso uses the pair to run a con on his behalf.

As the casino business explodes in Atlantic City, DiMaso decides to go after corrupt politicians in New Jersey. Starting with the mayor of Camden, Carmen Polito, DiMaso uses Irving and Sydney to go after government officials. As aides to “Sheik Abdullah” (an agent who pretends to be a wealthy investor in Atlantic City construction), Irving and Sydney hook Polito and soon they are using him to get access to corrupt Congressmen and Senators. While DiMaso works to nail the corrupt politicians, he does so outside the guidelines laid down by his boss, which puts his career at risk, a risk amplified by the fact that Irving and Sydney are not simply playing by DiMaso’s rules or solely for his goals.

American Hustle is a showcase of amazing performances – Jeremy Renner stands out for having vastly more opportunities to illustrate depth and substance than he was afforded in The Avengers (reviewed here!) – but the characters are almost entirely unlikable. Renner’s Polito seems instantly corruptible, but Renner is given softer moments (usually opposite Polito’s family members) to quietly and subtly illustrate that he is not monolithic. Polito’s motivations might be presented as the most complicated and empathetic (especially when mobsters begin exerting influence in the scam) and Renner rises to the challenges of giving the character layers.

That said, the rest of the characters in American Hustle (and I reference them as characters because this is a review of the film, not the historical incidents upon which the movie’s events are based) are presented more as archetypes than well-rounded individuals. Jennifer Lawrence’s Rosalyn has a manipulative quality to her that is used in the film largely to keep Irving in line and to sell the practicality of the budding relationship between DiMaso and Sydney. While Sydney and Irving seem to have instant and powerful chemistry, the viewer constantly wonders if the attraction Sydney has for DiMaso is just another scam. Amy Adams plays her attraction for Cooper’s DiMaso with an ambiguity that makes the potential for her character to betray him more obvious than surprising. Christian Bale’s best performances are when his character is at his most vulnerable. When he strides around confidently as a con artist, Bale’s Irving seems painfully familiar for anyone who enjoyed Bale in The Dark Knight Trilogy (reviewed here!). But, when Irving is preparing, when he is shaken, Bale is utterly convincing.

Those moments might be impressive moments of performance, but they are all part of the plot conceits one expects from a con film. In that regard, American Hustle has nothing new to offer viewers. Unlike Argo, where the educated viewer knows the resolution to the film before it begins, but the story is so effective that the viewer invests and is excited by the end, American Hustle fails to suck the viewer in so far. Instead, the rising action builds to the genre conceits the viewer expects as opposed to something surprising. Lacking surprise, American Hustle would have worked if the viewer cared about the characters, but the constant deceptions in the film make it hard to invest. That makes American Hustle worth watching and enjoying, but hardly the best film of the year.

For other works with Jennifer Lawrence, check out my reviews of:
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Hunger Games
X-Men: First Class
Like Crazy

6/10

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

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

Too Soon? World Trade Center Seems Self-Indulgent

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting characters, Good direction
The Bad: Predictable plot, Not daring enough, Mood too light, Some flat performances
The Basics: Created too soon after the September 11, 2001 attacks, World Trade Center is not entertaining, dramatic or edgy enough to keep viewers who lived through the day interested or engaged.


Lately, I feel like I'm writing a lot of disclaimers to my reviews to prevent me from being lynched by my readers. I figured, when I sat down to watch World Trade Center it would be a good opportunity to write a safe, puff review that couldn't possibly offend anyone. Well, my hopes were pretty much shattered when I didn't like the movie and I was resigned to writing another extensive disclaimer in one of my movie reviews. Sigh.

Port Authority cops John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno are working on the morning of September 11, 2001 when a plane hits one of the towers of the World Trade Center. They rush in to aid the evacuation of one of the towers and get trapped underneath the concourse between the two buildings. As they wait to be rescued or die beneath the rubble, their families fret and respond to the attacks on New York City, the Pentagon and the way of life in the United States of America.

World Trade Center is directed by Oliver Stone, who directed U Turn (reviewed here!) which I recently saw. Fortunately, for the viewer, Stone does not subject the viewer to his inane directoral style of that earlier movie. Instead of cheap camera movements and an annoying style, Stone tells a remarkably straightforward story with his direction on this movie.

The problem is, World Trade Center comes too soon and Stone is not daring enough as a director to shock the audience. Put simply, because the story is based on actual events, the turnout of the movie is never in serious doubt. The story lacks a real sense of jeopardy because in order to accept that this is based on actual events, there has to be someone left alive to tell the story. In short, there was not a moment of the film that I did not believe that John and Will were going to survive.

I have lived in New York State all my life and I lived through the events of September 11, 2001. Been there, done that. We get what happened and it's wonderful to tell a nice, heroic story about the day. The problem, in addition to the lack of jeopardy, comes in the story being told by screenwriter Andrea Berloff. Berloff abandons the story from the perspective of the McLoughlin's and Jimeno's long enough to show people reacting to the first tower being hit. Why, then, do Berloff and Stone not show it happening?

Throughout the film, the Port Authority cops are in doubt as to the second tower being hit, which seems odd because the second plane hit approximately fifteen minutes after the first and by the time most networks had visuals of the first tower on fire, the second plane appeared and hit the other tower. That that fact remains in doubt for so very long seems odd, even if it was a part of these two cop's reality.

Anyway, as people who lived through these events, it seems strange not to show at least the first hit to clearly establish the magnitude of what is happening. But that's the easy disappointment of World Trade Center as a movie. The other disappointment is one that it's hard to articulate given the emotions of the event. It's also one that we, as viewers, knew we would not be seeing.

In short, great drama is made from watching the human struggle. We watch movies about The Alamo not because we think the Texans are going to win, but because they put up a good fight. There is little more dramatic than heroes falling. It's not funny, for events that are recent it's not entertaining, but it's human to root for the struggle, if not the outcome. In simple terms in this case, World Trade Center fails in its drama because Stone created a film too soon to the event that is based on the tale of survivors and is not likely to be a shocker. It's too soon to send people to a movie where those trapped underground give a valiant fight for survival but perish hours before help arrives. Stone is just not going to make that film and the viewer knows it.

Lacking the essential drama of whether or not the two protagonists trapped underground will survive, the movie turns to the families who are waiting to learn their fate. This involves a lot of people acting surprised, shocked and . . . waiting. The dramatic tension that is supposed to be added by John's son Steven bugging his mom to do something comes across as more annoying than anything else.

Lead actors Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena do fine as John and Will, though they are not given much to work with. Most of their scenes involve them talking in the dark with no ability to express themselves through body language. Cage, especially, works his voice to create stress and the idea that his condition is deteriorating. Because most of their scenes are filmed in the dark, it's hard to say how Cage and Pena perform using facial expressions.

On the other front, Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Will's wife quite well. Her struggle is compelling and interesting. As she waits to find out if Will is alive, she struggles over the fact that she has to consider raising her unborn baby on her own. She plays the role with an intriguing mix of strength and raw emotionalism that captures the human condition in this type of conflict perfectly.

Sadly, the same cannot be said of Maria Bello, who played Donna, John's wife. Bello is flat and listless. Her performance adds nothing to make the viewer empathize with her. Instead, on John's side of the conflict, none of the characters pop. None of the performances there stand out as interesting or well-presented. So, while I felt for John being trapped under the rubble, it was hard to see what he was fighting for based on the performances in this film.

As well, his half of the story relies heavily on flashbacks. As John lays dying, he occasionally recalls a moment with him and his wife. Strangely, so does his wife. This becomes problematic because it guts the menace of the moment. Trapped under the rubble, it in some ways becomes less important if John (the character in the movie, NOT the actual guy who was trapped under the rubble!) survives or not if he has the ability to escape into his mind and revisit some past wonderful moment. In short, to borrow from the earlier notes of heroism, there's nothing terribly dramatic about dying with a smile on your face because despite the hell you went through buried alive, your last moments were consumed with escaping into the best memories of your life.

The movie's self-indulgent nature comes to a peak at the end of the film and it's troublesome enough to be worth mentioning. John McLoughlin has a voice-over at the end of the movie (voice by Cage, of course) which might well be from his account, but seems terribly out of place in this movie. John says, about September 11th, something to the effect of "A lot of people saw evil that day, but I saw something good." Indeed, the tagline for the film is: "The World Saw Evil That Day. Two Men Saw Something Else." After sitting through two hours of this movie, this just feels cheap. McLoughlin didn't see anything good in the movie, he was trapped under rubble for 22 hours! He didn't see much of anything. And while that might be a noble sentiment, it doesn't fit this film.

Perhaps should this type film be attempted again, a far more powerful presentation - as opposed to alternating between John and Will, their families and the Marine who comes to find them - sticking with just the survivors trapped underground would create something far more dramatic, difficult and real. I might actually watch that movie a second time, if it were done well.

In short, John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno survived something truly terrible, while attempting something heroic. Their story is a great tale of survival and keeping cool under pressure. This movie, however, is not. It's certainly not entertaining.

For other works with Donna Murphy, please check out my reviews of:
Tangled
The Fountain
Spider-Man 2
Star Trek: Insurrection

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for a comprehensive listing!

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

Got It From The Trailer; Babel Is Drawn Out Far Beyond Its Theme

The Good: Decent acting, Great idea, Decent directing
The Bad: Disappointing execution of idea, Almost no real character, Pacing is too slow
The Basics: While the performances are decent, there are no compelling characters in Babel and the narrative techniques service the theme without developing a real plot.


For years now, American audiences have been able to embrace dramatic films that employ diverse narrative techniques. P.T. Anderson's masterpiece Magnolia (reviewed here!) was one of the first films that was a sprawling dramatic epic that interwove characters along a common theme with the concept of chance and redemption being the ties that bound the movie. When Crash (reviewed here!), a film with a plethora of characters woven together along a story that frankly explored interethnic relations, won the Best Picture, it must have been heartening to Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Guillermo Arriaga, the director and writers, respectively of Babel. Given my disappointment in Little Miss Sunshine (reviewed here!), last year I found myself rooting for Babel, without seeing it, for the Academy Award for Best Picture. Now having seen it, I'm waiting to see The Departed (reviewed here!), but my general feeling was that this was not worthy of Best Picture.

In the mountains of Morocco, a man trades a goat and some cash for a new rifle and his two young sons are given it with the charge to keep predators away from the flock. The youngest son, Yussef, is interested in seeing if the range for the gun truly is three kilometers, as the provider of the weapon insists. In testing the range, he shoots a tour bus and hits Susan, an American tourist who is somewhat estranged from her husband.

At this point, the film leaps back a few days to lead up to the shooting and tying in other elements. In Japan, a young girl named Chieko begins to act out with her sexuality as she tries to cope with the death of her mother. She is a deaf mute and her desire to be taken consumes her. In America, a Mexican housekeeper is charged with taking care of two children, Debbie and Mike and she takes them to Mexico with her in order to go to her son's wedding. This becomes a problem when she attempts to re-enter the United States with them and a drunk man driving the car.

It is usually at this point that I would go into a full listing of the characters in a movie like this because that is usually so important to understanding the movie. Here, it is not. All of the characters are connected in one way or another, though the connections are fairly tenuous in some cases. For example, the justification for Chieko's whole appearance in the movie is that her father is the man who gave the gun to the guy who sold it to Yussef's father. It's a pretty thin relation and after watching the movie, my reaction was more that Chieko's story was for sensationalism. If you're a fan of Mad TV, the parody wherein Bobby Lee walks around spreading his legs constantly is pretty on the money for Chieko's place in the movie.

But the rearranging the time elements of Babel serves little purpose ultimately, save to keep Brad Pitt in the movie longer. It does not take very long for the viewer to figure out the natural order of things after Susan is shot. So, for example, it comes as no real surprise when Amelia is revealed to be Richard and Susan's housekeeper, trapped caring for them while Richard works to save Susan's life in Morocco. The film dutifully provides things like a phone call from Richard to his children shortly after Susan has been brought to a hospital both from the perspective of his children and, later in the film from his. The thing is, the viewer is smart enough to get what is going on without all of the elements viewed from every angle.

When I reviewed Bobby (reviewed here!), my general impression was that the movie would have done better had it not tried the buckshot approach; shooting out dozens of characters and never developing any sufficiently. Babel is similar and the movie could have been far better with only two of the four main plots (I'd vote for getting rid of the Chieko story and cutting Yussef's story after the opening to the movie). This would have given the chance to truly develop the characters and get us invested in them.

As it is, none of the characters truly come alive, though, ironically, Yussef becomes the one who illustrates the most growth or integrity. Richard, for example, comes across as a cold jerk for most of the movie, moved to desperation by the plot as opposed to anything genuine. Susan is virtually a nonentity, which is probably why she was given idiosyncrasies like being a germaphobe in order to keep her brief time on screen remotely interesting or distinctive.

This film is also filled with troubling contradictions in the characters. One of the most sympathetic characters, Amelia, is characterized as truly caring for her charges, Debbie and Mike. Amelia clearly loves them and she is very concerned about their well-being. It boggles the mind and stretches far past the suspension of disbelief that she would allow the kids to get into the car with a hothead who is drunk.

In short, much of the character elements exist solely to service the plot and they feel like it. None of the characters come alive as vibrant or real because their time on screen is spent in the service of the plot. Or the theme. The theme of Babel is the exploration of human need across the boundaries of language and culture, resulting in the concept that desperation makes people take extreme actions.

It is in service to that plot that Chieko is constantly disrobing or flashing everyone. Of course she is a deaf-mute; the story needs one to illustrate that even lacking the spoken language her needs are the same. Of course Richard speaks only English, having traveled as an American to Morocco without so much as a dictionary or phrasebook. Naturally, the border patrol agents who stop Amelia and the others are characterized as almost fascists.

And that's a great example of where the time shifting of the plot really severs the credibility of the film. Susan's shooting in Morocco makes the INTERNATIONAL news (there are newscasts about it in Japan); Amelia could easily have explained exactly who the children were and had a pretty high credibility with the border agents, especially considering she has their passports and such.

My point here is that Babel has a great idea that is made needlessly complicated and it fails to be credible when put in chronological order - which is likely why it is not. Beyond that, the film's theme is explored as fully in the two minute trailer as in the 143 minute film. In the trailer, the idea that language barriers cause strife, conflict and dire consequences is put forth with clips from the film that illustrate that. The trailer works at least as well as the entire movie. Sadly, it also contains the sum of character development from the film (which is to say, none).

The film looks great on DVD, though. I give Inarritu a great deal of credit for the direction and cinematography. Much of Babel's problems, I feel, are at the script level. The idea for the movie is compelling and great. It honestly is a decent theme and a story that shows things like Americans abroad, ignorant of the local language, in a struggle for life and death is great.

The execution here, though, fails.

And I wanted to like this one. I was psyched for it and I've previously liked dramas that take narrative risks. Babel felt like it was trying the techniques to be chic, resulting in the film ultimately feeling cheap. I'd recommend "Crash" instead of this for dealing with a lot of the themes of how people relate to one another as cultures (or subcultures). And as for last year's awards, so far, I'd have to say Blood Diamond might have been robbed . . .

For other works with Elle Fanning, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Super 8
i am sam

4.5/10

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.

| | |

That Mix Of Crass Humor And Violence, Observe And Report Hugely Disappoints!

The Good: A dozen laughs
The Bad: Violent, Poor acting, NOT funny, Stupid and predictable plot, Pacing
The Basics: Seth Rogen strikes out big time with Observe And Report, a scattered mall cop movie packed with violence and foul language, most of the rest is shown in the trailer.


I have been accused - not unjustly - of writing reviews that many find to be long, verbose, or - as I prefer to consider them - thorough. Sometimes, though, I encounter something that is so simple - usually something I loathed - that I find I can use an economy of language in describing it. After all, some things just plain stink and while there were idle moments in the film Observe And Report where I considered rating it as simply “below average,” by the time it was over, it was a clear "Avoid It" type movie. And no matter what others might write about it being a "guys" movie, it is equally unsatisfying to men and women (my fiancé and I hated it equally!).

The last film I saw set in a mall (having thus far missed Paul Blart, Mall Cop) was the Kevin Smith film Mallrats (reviewed here!). I am one of the rare reviewers who enjoyed that film more than Clerks. Still, based on the previews for Observe And Report, I suspected it might be on the same caliber as Mallrats. It was not. In fact, Observe And Report is so poorly made and such a poor representation of humor that about all it has in common with Mallrats is that both are movies and both have most of their action set in a shopping mall.

Officer Ronnie Barnhardt is the head of mall security at the Forest Ridge Mall, lusting at a distance for Brandi, a worker at the cosmetics counter. One morning, a flasher appears at the mall and terrorizes fifteen women, who lodge complaints and leave Ronnie feeling like he has a chance to distinguish himself by catching the culprit and thus winning Brandi's affections. When Brandi is flashed, Ronnie squares off with Conway police detective Harrison, who becomes increasingly frustrated by Ronnie's meddling with his case.

As Ronnie tries to track down both the flasher and a master thief, he applies for the police academy and pursues Brandi. Harrison resists Ronnie's aid in both cases and soon works actively to prevent Ronnie from joining the squad, including dropping him off in one of the worst neighborhoods in the city to leave him for dead. When Ronnie is betrayed by one of his own, he is seemingly left with nothing and returns to the mall a broken man.

Observe And Report is not just a stupid comedy, it is a meandering mix of plotlines and humor that uncomfortably mixes with over-the-top violence to create a movie that is fragmented, poorly assembled and feels like it takes about three hours to get to its conclusion. Legendary Pictures, which released The Dark Knight and Watchmen has its first big dud on its hands with Observe And Report, which seems to be trading entirely on Seth Rogen's current stardom. Like Rogen's other film, Pineapple Express (reviewed here!), Observe And Report mixes crude humor and incredible amounts of violence into the film.

The problem - one of many - with Observe And Report is that so much of the movie does not fit. First, almost all of the jokes in the film are in the trailers for the movie. As has become my habit, I counted the laughs. I laughed only twelve times in the hour and a half (it seriously felt like twice or three times as long) and I smiled an additional eighteen times. This is a pretty pathetic ratio, especially when one considers that one of those laughs came from a joke in the closing credits.

Second, too much of the film feels like it is in there for the trailer. There are a ton of quick shots away from Ronnie or other main characters that make stupid jokes basically as visual gags that have little or nothing to do with the main plot (usually involving Michael Pena as Dennis and almost all of which were in the preview trailer). I'm not sure why Michael Pena shaking his head from side to side is supposed to be considered funny, but the film cuts away to have him do it a couple of times.

Third, Observe And Report does not have a strong enough main plot to hold itself together, so it throws in all sorts of ridiculous, stupid and often violent subplots to fill for the full movie-length. So, more than just about Ronnie trying to catch a flasher, the movie includes subplots dealing with: a thief, Ronnie entering the police academy, Ronnie interacting with Nell a cute coffee seller who has a broken leg, Ronnie pursuing Brandi (if I were feeling charitable, I suppose I could lump those two together as "stupid romantic subplot"), reckless drug use, Ronnie's relationship with his drunk mother and pointless police brutality.

The result is a movie that is often more violent than it is funny and Observe And Report does such things as use almost the same shot from Watchmen where a person breaks another person's arm on screen. The movie is an "R" rating for obvious reasons revolving around male nudity (the flasher is pretty well exposed constantly in the last act) and language. One whole segment of the movie has Ronnie exchanging "fuck-you's" with a Middle Eastern small business owner. Large segments, like the ride along with Harrison, are not funny at all and become something that is not only violent, but disturbing.

Anna Faris's acting as Brandi appears mostly to be appearing on screen with her mouth hanging agape. Seth Rogen performs his usual deadpan character, this time with short hair (ooh!). But the real let down for acting was from Michael Pena. How someone goes from being in one of the best movies of all time - Crash (reviewed here!) - and illustrating some genuinely powerful emotions in convincing ways to being a terrible parody of a gay mall cop might well be evidence of the existence of god. In which case, god is deeply vindictive and Michael Pena has done something to seriously cheese off the divine.

As for us mortals, Observe And Report offers nothing of value to any of us, not even the few laughs it has.

For other works with Celia Weston, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Knight And Day
No Reservations
Hulk

2.5/10

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

© 2012, 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Surprisingly Good And Less Funny, Tower Heist Holds Up Remarkably Well!

The Good: Engaging plot, Wonderful acting, Good tension/mood
The Bad: Light on character development, Moments where the humor is forced
The Basics: Tower Heist may have been misbilled as a comedy, but it is surprisingly smart with a wonderful cast performing well!


Lately, my wife has been going through my DVD collection and we've watched a lot of things I like. So, for a date night last night, I made sure to have some movies on hand that I thought she might enjoy. She is a fan of both Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy, yet we somehow managed to miss Tower Heist when it was in the theaters. I was open to the movie, especially because I am a bit of a fan of Alan Alda. So, last night, we sat down to a movie that we both figured would satisfy both of us, especially with my wife's love of comedies.

The first "problem" with Tower Heist is that it is not actually a comedy. I put problem in quotes because the advertising of the movie should not actually affect the film all that much. Sure, my wife and I sat down expecting a zany robbery comedy and we were instead treated to a surprisingly tense action-drama, but the strength of Tower Heist is that it was so engaging that we did not care. It is a very rare thing these days when we sit down for one type movie and discover it to be something else entirely that we are not horribly disappointed. But Tower Heist did not disappoint us. Instead, we found ourselves more excited by how the movie was developing. And the comedy that is in the movie, while mostly incidental, generally worked.

Josh Kovacs is the general manager of the Towers, a luxury apartment complex and the most expensive property in New York City. Each day, he arrives at work to tend to the staff and residents of the Towers with a strong sense of professionalism, despite working in a place he could never hope to afford to live in himself. One morning, he believes that the wealthiest resident, Arthur Shaw, is being abducted and he tries desperately to stop the abduction. As it turns out, Shaw was trying to escape the FBI, who arrests him for securities fraud. While Josh tries to keep the staff of the Towers professional, it does not take long for even Kovacs to suspect that Shaw may be guilty. This takes on a deeply personal aspect for Kovacs and the staff of the Towers when Kovacs reveals to the employees that he requested Shaw manage their pensions and now their entire life savings is frozen or missing altogether.

When the doorman, Lester, attempts to kill himself by throwing himself in front of a subway, Kovacs - who has had meetings with FBI Special Agent Denham who further implies the government has a case against Shaw - confronts Shaw. In the process, Kovacs does serious damage to Shaw's prized car and gets himself, Charlie and Enrique fired. Now, with nothing left to lose, Josh decides to get the staff's pension money back the best way he knows how; stealing it from the cash safety net that Denham implies all white collar criminals have. Kovacs assembles a team, including Slide, a smalltime criminal from his neighborhood, to break into the Towers and steal from Shaw.

Tower Heist was largely advertised as a buddy comedy with Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy and it does Brett Ratner's work a serious disservice to consider it that way. First, Murphy's character, Slide, is a comparatively minor character who truly only has a presence in the latter half of the film. Second, virtually every scene that actually features Murphy and Stiller together doing anything remotely like comedy is featured in the many trailers for the movie. Apparently, the advertising executives for Imagine thought that audiences would not be able to accept Ben Stiller or Eddie Murphy in roles where they are not being funny, despite Stiller's role in Envy (reviewed here!) and Murphy's role in Dreamgirls (though, truth be told, I've found very little of what Murphy has done in recent years to be funny). So, the first useful aspect of a consideration of Tower Heist is that it is not, actually, a comedy. It is far, far too serious for that and the comedy that does come up is mostly just to break the tension.

Tower Heist, instead, is a surprisingly engaging story of what happens when economics drives smart people to do bad things. Arthur Shaw is an exceptional antagonist. Never taking responsibility for his actions, he starts off Tower Heist with a friendly relationship with Josh. Even when he is first arrested, Kovacs is careful to trend more toward neutrality than suspicion. He is a rich man who covers his crimes well. He appears decent and even offers Kovacs future employment before his crimes are revealed. But the real greatness of how horrible the character is comes when he is arrested. He turns to Kovacs and the two begin playing a very different chess match than the games they play against one another online. Shaw's coolness and confidence and his lack of interest in Lester's condition reveal to Kovacs the man's inhumanity. From that point on, Kovacs is on a righteous cause.

In the process of achieving a larger sense of justice, Tower Heist argues that some lesser wrongs must be perpetrated. Kovacs is essentially a leader looking out for the needs of the many. By taking on Shaw and attempting to get Lester, Charlie, and everyone else's money back, Shaw becomes a modern day Robin Hood (which is alluded to within Tower Heist). What is so smart about the story written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson is that they are not monolithic in the characters they created.

Tower Heist may be very low on character development, but it is populated by characters who make sense and fit a very diverse sense of what the world is. So, for example, Mr. Fitzhugh is an investment banker who has had some serious bad luck with the economic downturn in the world and as a result is being evicted. Well before his eviction, he has sold off most all of his possessions in order to try to save his marriage and keep his children from finding out. It is only as a last resort that a man like that turns to crime and that is reflected perfectly in Fitzhugh's objections within Tower Heist. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is Slide, who has never pulled off a job anywhere near as sophisticated as the one Kovacs brings him in to do. So, when there is the possibility of success, he is predictably treacherous. He does not grow, change or develop in the course of the movie, he simply reveals more of who he was all along.

In fact, there is no real character development in Tower Heist. Kovacs is a leader, Charlie is a worried soon-to-be-father, Lester is a man who has lost everything and sees no chance of ever getting it back. All of the characters, as adults of their age and socioeconomic statuses, are predictably set in their ways. So, what Tower Heist helps to show is the power fairly normal people actually have. Ratner and the writers create a very satisfying morality play that works with Tower Heist.

Tower Heist is also notable for the performances. Casey Affleck, Matthew Broderick, Michael Pena, Tea Leoni and Judd Hirsch give memorable supporting performances. Eddie Murphy's role of Slide is essentially a supporting role as well and he is good as the fast-talking scam artist and balcony robber. Ben Stiller performs well. Actually, Stiller illustrates that he has all of the serious qualities to be a captain in the Star Trek franchise in Tower Heist. Far from being at all zany or utilizing his gift for physical comedy, in Tower Heist Stiller is physically restrained, articulate and he embodies a concerned leader expertly. Never before has Stiller appeared on screen as commanding as he does in Tower Heist.

But, it is Alan Alda who deserves the real acting kudos for Tower Heist. Usually good natured, Alda appears in Tower Heist as Arthur Shaw. Here is trades in his genial grandfather image for a cold, calculating white collar criminal who is as heartless as he is efficient. Anyone used to seeing Alan Alda as an articulate, emotive liberal needs to watch Tower Heist, for he convincingly becomes one of the most compelling and realistic villains on film in years as Shaw!

Now on Blu-Ray and DVD, Tower Heist comes with a bevy of entertaining bonus features. In addition to alternate endings and commentary tracks, there are behind-the-scenes featurettes of some of the movie's memorable sequences. The DVD of Tower Heist will give fans their money's worth! But during this time of economic instability, Tower Heist is a satisfying and engaging story of how men and women must fight for basic fairness in an economic scheme that is played on the most uneven playing field in history. Watching how much they accomplish makes Tower Heist both entertaining and deeply cathartic.

For other Brett Ratner works, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses
Skyline
X-Men 3: The Last Stand
Prison Break - Season 1
The Family Man

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for all the film reviews I have written!

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

| | |

Will Ferrell Dominates An Entirely Depressing Film When Everything Must Go.

The Good: Mood, Acting, Characters
The Bad: Mood is so oppressive that it is hard to care about the characters.
The Basics: Everything Must Go offers a strong dramatic role to Will Ferrell who nails it, but leaves the viewer so depressed they do not care.


It seems like lately I have been catching up on art films. Last weekend, my wife and I finally caught Super (reviewed here!) and despite its tone and somewhat derivative nature, I found I enjoyed it quite a bit. So, I thought I would go 2 for 2 when I saw Will Ferrell's independent film, Everything Must Go at our local library. Unfortunately, the drama that Ferrell completely rocks is so oppressive in mood and devoid of plot that it is impossible to recommend.

Everything Must Go falls into the category of movie that is technically wonderful, but utterly unwatchable. From the title and basic characterization, viewers with any psychological insight can tell where the movie is going and that it does not defy expectations both disappointed and impressed me. I didn't want a happy Hollywood ending for Everything Must Go, but at the same time, I wanted a character marginally more interesting than Nick Halsey. Instead, Everything Must Go avoids all attempts at sensationalism and sinks the viewer into an entirely accurate and depressing representation of the world for one very, very depressing man.

Nick Halsey is an alcoholic and after sixteen years of working for a big corporation, he is fired. Popping his supervisor's tires with the knife he is given as a parting gift, Nick returns to his house to find himself locked out, his possessions on the front yard and a note from his wife informing him that the marriage is over. Nick meets a child who is hanging around the neighborhood, Kenny, and hires him to watch his stuff while he goes out to get beer. On the way home, Nick's car is repossessed by his company and he sits down in his chair in his front lawn and gets drunk.

After the neighbors call the police, Nick is given a temporary chance from a police detective, Frank, who is also his sponsor. Local law allows Nick to have a garage sale for up to five days and over the course of the five days, Nick becomes more and more prepared to move on. Hiring Kenny, Nick slowly begins to sell his possessions, while getting to know the new neighbor across the street. As Nick loses everything, including his last beer, he sinks further into depression and considers what future the world might actually hold for him.

Everything Must Go is a dramatic role for a traditionally comedic actor, much the way Punch-Drunk Love provided Adam Sandler with a role with real gravitas. In Everything Must Go Will Ferrell embodies utter dependence upon alcohol with his Nick not without a beer within arm's reach until the last half hour of the movie. Ferrell is understated and precise and this is one of the best roles he has ever taken on.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to care about Nick Halsey or Everything Must Go after a very short amount of time. The film is depressing and sad, quickly becoming a realist work that mirrors the lives of so many people we might actually know that it lacks entertainment value. The noticeable lack of soundtrack, the static camera angles, the lack of witty responses from the protagonist and the utter anguish that Will Ferrell portrays makes director Dan Rush's film one of the most emotionally cold ventures ever to grace the screen.

Ferrell is well-supported by Christopher Jordan Wallace, Rebecca Hall and, briefly, Michael Pena. Christopher Jordan Wallace plays Kenny and is delightfully engaging, defying the industry-adage that child actors are a pain to work with. Wallace is quiet, articulate and plays Kenny well, adding a physical presence to the movie that Ferrell's performance purposely diminishes. As Nick shrinks back into his chair, Wallace as Kenny stands taller and steals the focus. Rebecca Hall is understated as Samantha, the neighbor across the street. Stephen Root, Laura Dern, and Glenn Howerton make very brief supporting performances that are good.

Ultimately, it comes to Will Ferrell to make Everything Must Go work and he does it. He does it in pretty much the same way Will Smith made The Pursuit Of Happyness work. He defies expectations, delivers what humor the movie has with an un-Ferrell-esque delivery and he never yells. In the past, I have noted that Ferrell's acting slips when his characters yell and that is not the case in Everything Must Go. Even at his most heated as Nick, the viewer feels they are watching Nick Halsey, not Will Ferrell.

On DVD, Everything Must Go features a bunch of bonus features, but the film itself left me so depressed, I could not bring myself to watch them. Those who love Will Ferrell's works, but want to see just what his range can be, Everything Must Go delivers. But for those hoping for funny or even quirky, this film is an utter letdown and that is an unfortunate surprise from one of today's masters.

For other works with Michael Pena, be sure to check out my reviews of:
30 Minutes Or Less
Battle Los Angeles
Million Dollar Baby
Crash

5.5/10

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

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

| | |

Just The Right Mix Of Humor And Violence: Why 30 Minutes Or Less!

The Good: Funny. Decent character development, Action is entertainment.
The Bad: The acting is nothing to write home about.
The Basics: 30 Minutes Or Less is a very simple premise that works because it is funny and has enough action to be engaging.


The last few years, there have been a number of disturbing trends in cinema. The first, for me, has been the combination of graphic nudity and sex and explicit gore/violence. I don't see the point in getting turned on only to get so repulsed to the extent that one might want their genitals to just shrivel up. The other disturbing trend is the mix of humor and violence. I don't mind the concept of mixing humor and violence, but so often the movies I have seen, like Observe And Report and Pineapple Express (reviewed here!) are far more disturbing in their violence than they are funny. So, with the concept of 30 Minutes Or Less was one that had limited appeal for me. I mostly went to the preview screening because I enjoyed Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network (reviewed here!) and director Ruben Fleischer impressed me with Zombieland (reviewed here!).

30 Minutes Or Less worked, though. It was funny and there was enough action and suspense to balance it well. The balance was enough to make me care about the characters, even though the acting was nothing extraordinary. Still, it had some decent lines and it was enjoyable to see Jesse Eisenberg yet again. He plays Nick and Nick is a nice change from prior characters I have seen him play. But the film is far from flawless and while it goes quickly, after preview screening, I realized that because the premise was so simple, there was actually remarkably little to write about the movie.

Nick speeds around Grand Rapids, Michigan working for Vito's Pizza. Their motto is "30 minutes or less" and when he fails to make a run, he swindles the kids who scammed him out of their money with the promise of beer. Nick sees those in his life moving on, his best friend Chet has become a teacher at the elementary school and Chet's twin sister Kate has just gotten a job at the Four Seasons in Atlanta. Dwayne and Travis are lowlifes who have no real ambitions, Dwayne living with his millionaire ex-Marine father. One day at the strip club, Dwayne tells Juicy that he wants his father's last million and Juicy tells him that he has a way to kill the Major, but it will cost him $100,000. Innovating, Dwayne decides to "think like a millionaire" and he and Travis have Nick deliver a pizza to them at the scrapyard.

Nick awakens with a bomb strapped to him and the directions to rob a bank for the hundred thousand dollars Dwayne wants for his "tanning salon." Despite the serious falling out that Nick and Chet had the day before, Nick goes to Chet's school and begs him to help him. Chet and Nick realize that the vest will not come off without Nick losing his arms, at the very least. So, they prepare to rob the bank, as Dwayne works to line-up the killer needed to put the Major down.

One of the serious problems with 30 Minutes Or Less is that the plot is predictable. When Nick has the chance to tell off his boss, he runs to tell Kate good-bye. When the heist takes a turn for the violent and Nick messes up the money transfer with the killer, that decision to visit Kate comes back to bite him in the ass. The thing is, this move was telegraphed when Travis follows Nick during the rendezvous.

Moreover, the acting is nothing to write home about. Aziz Ansari is amusing as Chet. Ansari's entire routine as the sidekick seems to be raising the pitch of his voice and bugging out his eyes. It works, but the longer the movie goes on, the less impressive the performance seems. And while Jesse Eisenberg embodies - well - a character unlike any he has ever played, Danny McBride is well within his safe zone from his performance in Pineapple Express (which is the only other movie I have seen him in), as is Nick Swardson as Travis. The acting is mediocre at best for the bulk of the movie.

That said, 30 Minutes Or Less is funny and it is entertaining enough to recommend. There is a cute Facebook reference that allows Jesse Eisenberg to deliver one of the movie's best tongue-in-cheek lines. And the introduction of Chet is punctuated with the memorable line, "The alcohol should wash the taste of you out of your mouth." Michael Diliberti and Matthew Sullivan craft a script which is actually very funny and has some wonderful lines.

But the movie also has some decent action moments or moments atypical to a comedy. For example, after the car chase, Chet has a piece of the car embedded in his back. As Nick has to pull the shrapnel out, I sat and considered that I had never seen a moment like that in a comedy or action film. Sure, war films and doctor shows, but not an action comedy. And it worked.

30 Minutes Or Less is an entertaining film and one of the funniest moments is after the credits. But it's definitely a movie worth only one viewing.

For other works featuring Michael Pena, please check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
Everything Must Go
Million Dollar Baby
Crash
Homicide: Life On The Street - Season 6

6/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my index page on the subject.

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

| | |

If You Think You've Already Seen All Of Battle Los Angeles Already . . . You're Mostly Right!

The Good: Solidly entertaining, Decent character development, Decent acting, Good special effects.
The Bad: Derivative plot structure, Character cliches, Revealing previews, Pulls punches
The Basics: Battle Los Angeles may be shockingly derivative of Aliens, but it work . . . for anyone who has not seen any previews for it.


There has been an annoying trend in current cinema where previews for a film become more and more revealing such that one is left with the feeling it is not even worth bothering to go see the actual movie being advertised. I was actually getting quite excited about the potentials of Battle: Los Angeles up until the advertising campaign for the last few weeks stepped up how much the previews revealed. So when my wife managed to snag me screening tickets to the movie, I was a bit less excited about it than I had been months ago.

And now having seen Battle Los Angeles, the biggest surprise for me was how very much I actually enjoyed the film. Battle Los Angeles is almost completely ruined by the previews and this is an instance where the journey could have been filled with some real surprises, were it not for the previews. While virtually anyone with a brain who saw even the final movie poster to Battle Los Angeles could tell that the giant alien device rising out of the ground came very late in the film, the real disservice for viewers comes in how the advertising campaign for the film featured alien air support. Without beating that mistake by revealing too much, those who enjoyed the advertising campaign will find that they are just waiting for the characters to catch up with them based on the weeks of advertising they had seen in advance of the film. Even so, Battle Los Angeles is incredibly entertaining and is 2011's first legitimate blockbuster film.

Twenty-four hours before an alien assault begins - Battle Los Angeles opens with the bass of explosions and Spanish news reports revealing the attack as helicopters fly over a beach that is under attack - Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz is outrun by younger Marines and decides it is time to quit the military. Peppered in with introducing the young officers and enlisted men training at Camp Pendleton are news reports about a meteor shower which will be hitting various points on Earth the next day. When the next morning comes, Nantz, Stavros, Harris, Adukuwe, Martinez and Lockett (among others) are recalled to active service when the military realizes that the meteors are not natural occurring phenomenon - because they decelerate before impact - and that Earth is under attack. As the troops move out, CNN illustrates what the military suspected when civilians on the Los Angeles beaches are slaughtered wholesale by armored alien beings advancing out of the ocean.

Nantz and his team are dropped into the war zone that is Los Angeles with a simple mission: help clear civilians out before the Marines fire-bomb Santa Monica to destroy the alien ground forces. Nantz and his team are sent behind the advancing alien front to a police station where civilians were trapped when the firefight began. With three hours until Santa Monica is liquidated, Nantz finds himself and his men outgunned by aliens. And the news goes from bad to worse when a tech Sergeant from the Air Force, Santos, finds her way to the unit with news that her team was tracking a much larger alien force before they were wiped out. With time running out, the humans on the ground and in the sky above struggle to survive extermination.

I feel the need to reiterate two things before I go into more analysis of Battle Los Angeles: 1. I actually enjoyed the movie and 2. It was ruined by the advertisements. I feel it is important to reiterate that first point because the more I think objectively about the movie, the more I find myself nit-picking it. Throughout Battle Los Angeles, news reports feature scientists doing their best to explain the invasion and the conclusion that the aliens have come for Earth's liquid water. Given that, one has to wonder why the aliens are bothering to try to wipe out humanity at all. The middle of the ocean is much harder for humans to defend and it could be a much more powerful position for these particular aliens. Come to think of it, if aliens decided to claim a giant chunk of ocean, there wouldn't be much we could do about it ("Mr. President, I'd like to nuke the Pacific!" "Gosh Gary, that sounds idiotic, you're fired"), so the basic premise of Battle Los Angeles doesn't make that much sense. Or I'm just that much smarter than the invading aliens in it. But I liked the film.

But it doesn't take a very sophisticated reviewer to notice that Battle Los Angeles is plotted identically to Aliens (reviewed here!). If you're looking for the parallels, it's pretty simple. In Battle Los Angeles, the marines are introduced (like in Aliens), they go to the front, which is like when the marines in Aliens encounter the aliens on the colony, they find the civilians and Santos, like finding Newt in Aliens, drive a bus (like the all-terrain vehicle in the classic), and barricade themselves before a firefight which involves one of the people blowing themselves up and ultimately face the Big Bad (in Aliens it was the Queen). Battle Los Angeles lacks the quips from Aliens and the sense of mood is constant and impressive for the sense of futility that pervades the movie.

Unfortunately, the character arcs are almost entirely cliche. Harris is preparing for his wedding, Martinez is married with a pregnant wife at home and Nantz is plagued by his prior mission where the men he led were killed. The lieutenant leading the company is fresh out of officer training (hmmm . . . wasn't Gorman in Aliens on his first actual combat drop?!) and one of the men is the brother of a man who had been in Nantz's last squad. Battle Los Angeles makes a decent showing of attempting to insert some sense of individuality to the characters, but because many of them get glossed over, some seem like real cliches. The most notable of these is Martinez with his pregnant wife.

What the viewer is left with, then, is a pretty solid experience piece. This is The Hurt Locker meets Independence Day and the combat in it is intense. The dialogue is very military oriented - measurements are in "clicks" and the phrase ". . . asset fell off the grid" insinuates authenticity - so the movie feels like what it is supposed to be, a bunch of Marines fighting for the survival of humanity. The only truly disturbing aspect of the Marines buckling up and doing what has to be done is that in the closing credits there are credited members of the military (entertainment liaison), so there is a sense that this could be just one real long advertisement to go enlist with the Marines.

But director Jonathan Liebesman deserves a lot of credit for not making seriously annoying - and common - mistakes that his contemporaries make. Cloverfield and District 9 leap instantly to mind as films where the directors overused handheld cameras to make frenetic movies that ended up as just nauseating. Liebesman seems to have a strong grasp on the idea that if one is making a movie where there are lots of explosions, advancing aliens and realistically obscured eyelines, that the camera shouldn't make the movie more difficult to watch.

Unfortunately, Liebesman seems to be a Hollywood wh . . . um, director, of the caliber who is more determined to make a PG-13 film than a good one. Battle Los Angeles too frequently pulls its punches to make the movie kid-safe. The one use of the f-word comes late in the film and is used to refer to the aliens, as opposed to any of the Marines getting upset over either the casualties the squad is taking or the destruction of their homeworld. The bodies that are seen littering Los Angeles are not frequently burned, maimed or otherwise anything but window dressing and many of the casualties of characters happen very quickly and without too much realism to their demise. The most problematic way the film is cropped, though, is in a scene in the middle where Nantz, Santos and a civilian veterinarian find an alien and basically vivisect it to figure out how to kill it. The creature is never focused on enough to truly tell where the organs they are pulling out are coming from or what they are actually doing.

But for all my griping, Battle Los Angeles has some pretty decent acting. Aaron Eckhart is a favorite of mine and he does not use his trademark smile through the entire film. His smirk is only hinted at and it never reaches his eyes, allowing Eckhart to establish Nantz as a deeply serious and humorless character . . . which makes him the archetypal Marine. The others in the work are convincing, though Michelle Roderiguez seems to have landed in this niche ever since she finished on Lost.

Battle Los Angeles is not troubled by an oppressive or overly bassy soundtrack, so Bryan Tyler deserves some credit for defying expectations in that regard. The special effects do look good, even if there is frequently a lot of realistic warfare going on around the aliens and their vehicles to prevent viewers from actually seeing them clearly. There is no real sense of catharsis to the movie or the few victories that happen early in the film. Even so, Battle Los Angeles is entertaining, worth watching and captivating from beginning to end. And while the DVD release date will almost certainly be August 12, 2011, perhaps by that time viewers will have forgotten how much was spoiled by the advertising and rediscover it as something even more thrilling than it was on the big screen.

For other works with Aaron Eckhart, check out my reviews of:
Love Happens
The Dark Knight
Frasier Season Eleven

7/10

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

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