Morgan Freeman And Greg Kinnear Sell The Rushed/Slow Feast Of Love Well!

The Good: Acting, Characters, Dialogue
The Bad: Pacing!, Abrupt resolutions
The Basics: Good acting and interesting characters make up for a film that seems to gloss over some meaningful moments in the story.


These days, it seems that most of the movies I take in on DVD I find by watching other movies on DVD. That was the way I found Feast Of Love, a film that sold me from the previews I saw when watching another film. After all, director Robert Benton did not grab me with the last movie of his I saw: he wrote The Ice Harvest (reviewed here!). But the preview of Feast Of Love looked too good to pass up and so I decided to give it a spin.

Largely, I enjoyed the movie and my "recommend" is much more firm than my rating. I enjoyed Feast Of Love, which is a rather able romantic drama, but it suffers in too many places from being a movie. Romance in films is rushed and though I might seem biased as I am not usually a fan of voice-overs, the voice-overs from Morgan Freeman's Harry Stevenson at the end of the movie are just plain terrible. Instead of taking time to illustrate key scenes, they are simply told to the viewer and this is an unfortunate conceit in a movie where relationships come together and fall apart (television, on the other hand, tends to have enough time to breathe and thus makes for a much better medium for realistic romance stories).

The wise college professor Harry Stevenson is on sabbatical following the death of his son, which has left him somewhat estranged from his wife, Esther. He has taken to spending his days wandering, observing and hanging out at Bradley Smith's coffee bar. Harry and Bradley are friends and they end up watching one of Kathryn's - Bradley's wife - softball games and afterward, Harry observes Kathryn falling in love with a woman from the visiting team. As Bradley's marriage falls apart, young ex-junkie Oscar falls in love at first sight with Chloe, who easily reciprocates his love.

As Oscar and Chloe struggle to pay the rent and grow their love, while avoiding Oscar's psychotic, alcoholic father, Bradley begins a romantic relationship with his realtor, Diana. Diana, who has been sustaining an affair with a married man, provides a real chance for Bradley to find love and happiness, despite the fact that the pair has moved into a house that seems to have been the downfall of several romantic relationships (conveniently this puts Bradley right next door to Harry).

Unfortunately, the trailer has key lines in it that indicate exactly how Bradley's relationship with Diana ends, but I shall not repeat them here. D'oh! Okay, so his relationship with Diana ends and, unfortunately for the flow of the film, the woman who next enters Bradley's life is given such a truncated appearance that the relationship is never truly believable. And that's the serious drawback throughout much of Feast Of Love. I like movies that have big casts, a lot of characters to keep track of and stories that interweave. I can live with that. In Feast Of Love, there are essentially three couples (Harry/Esther, Oscar/Chloe, and Bradley and whomever he is with at the time) and most of the time is spent on Bradley and his romantic flailings.

The problem is Bradley's two post-Kathryn relationships both appear to be missing pretty significant chunks to them and the viewer feels a bit jerked around by the absence of the scenes of important growth for the character and his romantic self. Cheating that with the voice-over near the end just feels cheap.

This is not to say that Feast Of Love is bad; it's not, but the pacing is seriously off. Actually, one of the nicest things about the movie comes in the character of Harry. Harry is presented as an erudite, solid character who could be one of the Greek Gods he speaks of in the opening monologue, he is that great. Portrayed by Morgan Freeman, Harry instantly connotes a wizened, credible professor. But the genius of how Harry is presented is that he is not omnipotent. The reason so many smart people need therapy is because we (humans) all have blind spots. We may be exceptional in some areas, but in the areas that hit us most deeply, we often cannot see straight. Harry, who is presented as easily the smartest character - both in terms of reason and emotions - has a huge blind spot and his friendship with the young Chloe finally exposes that blind spot to him. His character arc is one of the most subtle and deepest in the entire movie.

The most obvious arcs come from Bradley, who has far more obvious blind spots. Bradley wants to believe in love so much that he doesn't see what is, he idealizes his relationships instead. So, for example, when he takes Kathryn to a kennel to see dogs, he becomes convinced that she is over her hatred of dogs because she tolerated one of the dogs she saw there. That type of naive blindness is difficult to watch, but essentially human and works wonderfully for viewers to empathize with Bradley. Of course, half the time, we are simply frustrated by how Bradley doesn't get it, but it works.

Bradley is played by Greg Kinnear and he is the perfect everyman for the role. Kinnear has the ability to slouch slightly to connote deep emotional wounds in his character even before he begins to speak. And when Bradley is in love and believes everything in his life is fine (blinders firmly attached) Kinnear holds himself up with a confidence that seems perfectly natural and real.

The cast is rounded out with performances by Selma Blair (Kathryn), Jane Alexander (Esther), and Fred Ward (Oscar's father, Bat). But for a change it is young actors who made me truly appreciate their characters: Alexa Davalos as Chloe and Toby Hemingway as Oscar. First, the pair has great on-screen chemistry. From the first moment Davalos appears on screen, there is no doubt in the viewer's mind that her character wants exactly what Oscar wants and Davalos manages this without speaking. Second, each actor is fearless in their portrayals. Hemingway has the look of an ex-junkie in this, but he manages to make the audience believe fully that he has put that life behind him. As for Davalos, a quick trip over to the IMDB revealed to me that this was not the first thing I had seen her in, so I have to say that I was impressed by how she played scared. Davalos had very tough roles in Angel and The Chronicles Of Riddick (reviewed here!) and I never made the association with her often terrified and very young-seeming character in Feast Of Love. Truly, this is her master performance.

On DVD, Feast Of Love the film looks and sounds good, but it comes with no real bonus features. There are cast biographies of the players, but that's it. This is pretty disappointing for a film of this caliber. In general, this is a worthwhile drama likely to satisfy most.

For other films featuring Morgan Freeman, please check out my reviews of:
The Dark Knight Rises
Invictus
The Dark Knight
Wanted
Lucky Number Slevin
March Of The Penguins
War Of The Worlds
Batman Begins
Million Dollar Baby
Dreamcatcher
Unforgiven
Driving Miss Daisy

7/10

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

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

| | |

The Reason People Don't Like Teenagers: Just My Luck Embodies The Worst In Entertainment

The Good: You've got me, it ends?
The Bad: Plot is predictable, Characters, Acting, Soundtrack, Pretty much everything
The Basics: With terrible acting, poor role models/behaviors exhibited and an insipid teen soundtrack, Just My Luck is a loser for all audiences.


Every now and then, I walk right into my favorite library, browse along the DVDs and stop at the first title I do not recognize and I get that movie out. Generally, it takes a lot for me to find something by this method these days. Today, I was in luck and I found a movie I had not heard of that was new, so I got it out and watched it. It was called Just My Luck, features Lindsay Lohan and it makes me wonder if everyone remotely associated with this movie has had their career utterly destroyed. If not, they ought to be.

Ashley lives in Manhattan in a fabulous apartment, does not believe in luck, yet she is always able to catch a cab, rain clouds clear up when she walks outside and the new cute guy she meets (who is, of course, fabulously rich) asks her out and she gets the corporate credit card to plan a fabulous party for the richest music mogul around. Across town, Jake Hardin has terrible luck: his pants tear, he finds a five dollar bill covered in dog poop and his quest to get a c.d. to Damon Phillips, the music mogul, lands him in jail. Jake makes his way into the fabulous party, kisses Ashley and their luck reverses, allowing Jake to become successful representing his band and sending Ashley into a chaotic life that involves losing everything she had.

My first problem with this movie was I could not figure out who the intended audience is. The movie is PG-13, but characters mention erotic massage, celebrate with champagne and work at jobs that require at least a rudimentary college education. As an adult, the movie is lightyears too stupid for me. The average joke involves falling down, vomiting when one is nervous or getting punched in the face by the butch woman in your jail cell. So, it's clearly not intended for an adult audience (I think we need a new rating system from the MPAA which will indicate the level to which a movie will insult the intelligence of an adult), but it has some dialogue that is apparently pushing it above the age 13 threshold. It this garbage truly what 13 - 18 year olds are watching these days?!

This movie does wonderful things for young women in the 13 - 18 age group. It reinforces such beautiful stereotypes as to how girls act (upon finding out she'll be taking a helicopter with her boyfriend to catch the jet to go to the game they're watching, she giggles and declares, "This is so going into my diary!" - that might be a paraphrase, I'm not searching the disc for that line!), reminds girls of the importance of wearing underwear, and encourages young women to enter their adulthood and engage in shouting at whoever will listen when they encounter an obstacle. An argument could be made that Just My Luck also encourages young women to improvise in order to wow the businessworld, but the actual process of Ashley improvising and succeeding with Damon is not shown.

This movie has no entertainment value. Virtually every line in the movie is terrible and that it took five people to write this piece of garbage boggles me. I. Marlene King, Amy Harris, Jonathan Bernstein, Mark Blackwell, and James Greer cannot, apparently, come up with a decent line or original concept between themselves. There was not a single gag in the movie that I did not see coming. My cats saw them coming, that's how obvious every joke in this movie was.

The characters are all terrible. Not one of them pops, not one of them is remotely empathetic. Instead, they are vacuous, spoiled, superstitious (though most claim not to be) and so poorly conceived that when one of the two protagonists switches luck, everyone associated with them switches luck as well. To wit, there's no decent explanation for why Maggie's song, which was scheduled to be covered by McFly - the band - would be dropped when Ashley's luck changes.

So, in addition to being a pointless debate on the force of luck - it's essentially treated as a parasite or communicable disease here that is transmitted by kissing - Just My Luck has not a single character that is worth watching. Instead, the film is a painful reminder that young people are being set up for . . . you know what, at the end of this movie, I'm not even sure what young people are being set up for! Are our 13 - 18 year olds perceptive enough to become as vacuous as the characters in this movie? Or can they not even aim that high?

It's hard to guess. What's not hard to evaluate here is the acting. It's terrible. Through and through this is a reminder that young people are not inherently talented. Director Donald Petrie seems to have gone out of his way to find the worst actors possible. So bad was the acting in Just My Luck that I was astounded to learn that McFly was a real band. Their amateur sound, which populates this movie, was so bad I could only figure that they were terrible actors cast poorly as musicians. As it is, they're just poor musicians being used as actors. This reminds us that artists often have different talents and a musical career should not be taken as a license to act.

Chris Pine and Lindsay Lohan (Jake and Ashley, respectively) have no on-screen chemistry and Pine's performance is, at best, derivative of Kyle Howard (in his role from Grosse Point). At best, it's stiff and utterly lacking in charisma and/or comic timing.

Lindsay Lohan is equally bad as Ashley. She has no real screen presence or charisma in this movie. Sure, she's made to look good, but she does not perform as anything even remotely close to entertaining here.

Back before the age of focus groups and target demographics, the industry was geared toward adults (okay, maybe we're forced to go all the way back to when books were the dominant medium of entertainment). Before things became geared toward children, they either were exposed to what the adults were exposed to (places in the U.S. that were literate had more literate - i.e. higher levels of diction and vocabulary - people) or they went without. Just My Luck makes the argument for having kids go without until they are mature enough to "get" adult concepts.

In recent days, I've seen some decent movies with young people. Ghost World (reviewed here!) and Dreamland (reviewed here!) were both superior movies with young people as protagonists. I don't know what either is rated, but they're bound to be better than this drecht for your young adults.

For other films with Chris Pine, check out my reviews of:
Star Trek
Smokin’ Aces
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement

1/10

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

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

Why Trekkers Love Galaxy Quest

The Good: Funny, Decent acting, Good concept
The Bad: Predictable plot and character arcs
The Basics: In a clever science fiction comedy, a crew of actors from a science fiction show are impressed by aliens to save their race from a brutal enemy.


As I consider Galaxy Quest, a story Robert Picardo (Star Trek Voyager) told at a Star Trek convention comes to mind. The venerable actor was on stage talking about being on a plane when the in-flight movie was Galaxy Quest. Several people on the plane had recognized him from his work on Star Trek and as he watched, he noticed people on the plane watching him with a generally nervous sense about them. He commented on how when he started laughing and made it clear that he was enjoying the film, the plane began to openly enjoy the movie. It was like the people on the plane who respected Picardo and his work needed his permission to enjoy the parody. Picardo, for his part, enjoyed the film quite a bit; he has quite a good sense of humor (actually, he's one of the funniest people alive today and he was perfectly cast as The Doctor on Star Trek Voyager). The thing is, most Trekkers - which I count myself as - have a sense of humor about our subculture and were thrilled to have a movie that actually includes us (even if in parody).

Years after the cult-classic science fiction show Galaxy Quest is canceled, the actors from the show are finding themselves virtually unemployable as actors and working the convention circuit making money signing autographs and dealing with their fans one on one. The star of the show, Jason Nesmith - who played the captain of the ship - is egocentric and thrives on the celebrity, while his sidekick, the accomplished actor Alexander Dane laments the loss of his legitimate career. When actual aliens arrive to enlist Nesmith in a fight against an oppressive adversary - misinterpreting the old television show broadcasts for historical documents - Nesmith reunites the cast to try to bluff their way through saving the galaxy.

The fundamental problem, of course, is that Nesmith is an actor, not a starship captain, just as Fred Kwan is not an engineer, Tommy is not a pilot and Dane is not actually an alien (though for the convention, he has donned his prosthetic). When it becomes clear that the stakes are life and death, the actors must rise to the occasion and work together to save the galaxy.

There are too few science fiction comedies out there. There are even fewer that are smart science fiction comedies (Dude, Where's My Car? - reviewed here - for example, would fall into the "not smart science fiction" category). Galaxy Quest manages to be a smart science fiction comedy in addition to being a clever commentary on the role of television - specifically shows that have a cult following - in American society and culture. Part of what makes this show work is the concept of how roles like the fictional show Galaxy Quest provide can both make actors and destroy their careers, sprout a loyal and devoted audience and isolate that following from living balanced lives. That's clever and well-executed in this film. It's what we in the subculture "get."

Some Trekkers object to the parody, as most of the fans in Galaxy Quest are overweight, living with their parents and dateless males. Writers David Howard and Robert Gordon call it as they see it and their representation is an accurate parody, the hyperbole of the most visible and disturbing element of the subculture (i.e. it's hard to parody the NASA engineer who was inspired by Star Trek as effectively as the socially-isolated teen whose sole interface with others is the convention experience).

As for the story itself - outside the commentary it seeks to make - Galaxy Quest is solidly entertaining. Nesmith and his crew of actors face the amusing foibles of acclimating to a real ship based on the one they operated for years on their television show. As they experience wonder at stepping on alien worlds and horror at the brutality of the enemy's attacks, the audience finds their fish-out-of-water struggle entertaining.

A lot of it, though, is tied closely with the commentary, though. So, for example, Gwen DeMarco, Jason's quasi-love interest and costar, finds herself feeling useless and angry as her role on the show - and on the ship - was to ask the computer for information. This is a terrible role to play in reality and one that is frequently redundant. Yet, watching her adapt to being the interface on the ship is amusing. Equally amusing is engineer Fred Kwan's easy adaptation to the ship, as if jumping off into outer space and becoming chief engineer of a space vessel happens every day to him.

While the character arcs are largely predictable - Nesmith learns the value of teamwork, Dane discovers the importance of the role he has so long despised - the characters here are intriguing. Nesmith is an entirely self-absorbed egoist and it's refreshing to see how he reacts when faced with reality. After all, how does a man whose career is based on the force of his personality react and survive when real peril presents itself? There's the famous quote to the effect of faking confidence and actual confidence yield the same result and Galaxy Quest seeks to explore that using the foil characters of Nesmith and Dane.

What sells Galaxy Quest to the larger audience is certainly the acting. Tim Allen pulls off the preening egoist Nesmith with amazing efficiency and realism. Allen, as Nesmith, energizes the convention audience when he appears on stage and it is Allen's innate charisma that convinces the movie audience that this is realistic. Allen can work a crowd and in his early scenes as Nesmith, he embodies that type of performer.

Sigourney Weaver, who portrays Gwen, is wonderful as a frustrated actress who lives very much in the real world. Weaver's strength in Galaxy Quest comes from being able to effectively play off Allen and convince the audience of the reality of their love-hate relationship.

Alan Rickman is great as Alexander Dane, though it seems like the role is not a stretch for such a dignified actor. Similarly, Tony Shalhoub (best known for his performance of the quirky detective Monk) is great as the easygoing engineer Kwan. Like Rickman, however, the role does not seem to push the actor into any terribly new territory. Instead, this is a role he makes appear effortless and the enjoyment in watching him perform is for the humor he is able to bring out as a result.

One of my favorite performances in Galaxy Quest comes in the form of Enrico Colantoni's portrayal of the extraterrestrial Mathesar. Colantoni is probably best known to American audiences as the promiscuous photographer Elliot on Just Shoot Me, though he gave an incredible dramatic performance of a mentally retarded son of Andy's sponsor on NYPD Blue for a few episodes in the second season. Colantoni is able to combine the two performances into a humorous, unsettlingly weird presentation of an alien on Earth with Mathesar. He steals the scenes he is in.

All in all, Galaxy Quest is solidly entertaining and genuinely funny, though the humor does not hold up terribly well over multiple (5+) viewings. It's worth your attention and a lot of fun for science fiction fans. Or those who like mocking us.

For other science fiction comedies, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Men In Black III
Paul


7/10

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

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

How Did A Rip-Off Of Singin’ In The Rain Win Best Picture?!

The Good: Well-shot, Moments of performance, Generally good story
The Bad: Hammy overacting by the leads, Familiar story, Characters that it is virtually impossible to empathize with, Repetitive
The Basics: The Artist is another great example of a year the Best Picture Oscar winner was, truly, not the best film of the year as a (mostly) silent film tells the story of the end of the silent movie era.


Ever since I started making a concerted effort to watch and review every film that won the Best Picture Oscar, I have been loath to review a film simply because it won the Best Picture. Such reviews usually devolve into a diatribe about why the movie deserved to win or, more commonly, why it should not have won. It’s taken me until now to muster up the enthusiasm to watch the latest Best Picture winner. I knew Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes did not have a chance for even a nomination (which is too bad, it was one of the best films of 2011), but either Inception (which at least was nominated the year before!) or The Help embodied more of what I expect from a Best Picture winner than what little I knew about The Artist.

The Artist is a gimmick movie. Writer and director Michel Hazanavicius created a black and white, (mostly) silent film and passed it off as an incredible piece of work. The only surprise for me with The Artist is that no one else seems to be making the argument that Hazanavicius’s film is painfully derivative. As I have very often said, if you are going to steal, don’t steal from the classics! Within ten minutes of the opening of The Artist, I had the distinct feeling I had seen the film before. And I have. It’s Singin’ In The Rain!

Seriously. If you remove the color and strip away the music, The Artist is just a cheap knock-off of Singin’ In The Rain (reviewed here!). Barely more complicated than that, The Artist is particularly charmless and seems to be so short on its own idea that its themes (both in content and musical) get repeated so often that one would have to be pretty much braindead to not understand what George Valentin is going through. Moreover, in today’s current economic climate, The Artist seems to be even more of an elitist endeavor; people have to change careers or adapt their career on a daily basis lest they (literally) starve. George Valentin’s struggle to adapt to the “talking pictures” seems a ridiculous fight the longer The Artist progresses. It is easier to be sympathetic to Bill Murray’s vaudevillian character in Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!); at least he had layers!

The Artist follows George Valentin, celebrity of the silent movie serials. In 1927, he is the talk of Hollywood and the biggest thing in movies. Following one of his movie premieres, dancer Peppy Miller literally stumbles into stardom by knocking into George and, despite the tension it causes between George and his wife, she becomes a leading lady opposite him in a string of highly-successful movies. Change comes when the studio wants to do talking pictures and Peppy eagerly adapts. But George wants nothing to do with the talking pictures and when one of his projects and one of Peppy’s films go head to head, hers is a success and his flops, leaving him bankrupt. Over the years that follow, George spirals down into depression, losing everything, until his dog saves him from his own attempt to burn down his house and a subsequent suicide attempt foiled by Peppy. In the aftermath, Peppy lays her own career on the line for George.

The novelty of a black and white picture seems particularly cheesy in the high-definition age. Did director Michel Hazanavicius think viewers would not buy into the reality of the late 1920s, early 1930s if it was in color?! The sound editing makes a bit more sense – before the final moments of the film, there is a nightmare scene that is rich with sound effects and the score is one that embodies the sound and feel of early movies. The combination of making a silent movie and making it black and white feels gimmicky.

None of the characters popped. George Valentin is self-obsessed and after he loses his celebrity, he is utterly boring. Charisma does not just die, but in The Artist, it does with Valentin. Similarly, Peppy Miller is cute, but her role serves little other than to promote the perception that great dancers make for great actors and given how monolithic her performance is, she seems only to have her celebrity from her association with Valentin for her start. She has no real “hook” outside that and it is implausible that she would be anything other than a “flavor of the month” without him.

That said, it is easy to empathize with Clifton, George’s (and later Peppy’s) chauffeur. He has nothing to do but wait on George and when George sinks into depression and his brand of poverty, Clifton’s is the last loyalty he loses.

On the acting front, The Artist is a pageant of overacting. Unlike how sound is used at key moments in The Artist, the acting is homogeneously hammy overacting. That is to say, it makes sense for Jean Dujardin to flail about and over-utilize his facial expressions and sense of movement when his character George is in full celebrity mode or acting on set in the movies within the movie. But that during the deeply personal moments he retains the goofy performance style makes it impossible to take the big dramatic moments of the film seriously.

Similarly, Bernice Bejo seems to hit the same note over and over again. Playing more off her simple good looks, Bejo might make Peppy dance incredibly well, but she fails to make her interesting or distinctive in any real way. Even familiar stalwarts like John Goodman and James Cromwell (producer/director Al Zimmer and Clifton, respectively) do not give performances that could be defined as even “noteworthy.”

Now on DVD and Blu-Ray, The Artist comes with bonus features that, given how disappointed I was with the primary feature, I could not be bothered to check out. The Artist was, quite simply, that unimpressive.

For other works with Beth Grant, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Extract
No Country For Old Men
Southland Tales
Matchstick Men
Donnie Darko

[As the winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is included in my Best Picture Project! Be sure to check that out for an organized listing of reviews of EVERY Best Picture Oscar winner!]

2.5/10

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

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

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy: Very Funny, But Very Average Comedy.

The Good: Funny, DVD bonus features, Generally the acting
The Bad: Somewhat repetitive humor
The Basics: Funny, but often a one-trick pony, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy excels on the acting front more than on the character or plot points.


Some part of me has come to entirely embrace the old axiom that it is easier to get work if you already have it. I come to this acceptance by way of watching more and more movies my wife loves. She is a big fan of films I derisively call "dumb comedies." She doesn't argue; she's looking for light fare full of dick and fart jokes, unburdened by social commentary. She wants foul language, nudity and jokes that are racy and while I have not, traditionally, been a fan of such fare, I have found a few that I enjoy. Largely, the ones that she enjoys are the works that feature Will Ferrell in them. She's a fan and there are a few works by or featuring Ferrell or from his production company that I have come to enjoy.

The latest in the parade of movies my partner has subjected me to is Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy. This brings me back to my original premise. Having just seen The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard which is by the same creative team as Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy and Talladega Nights: The Ballad Of Ricky Bobby, it is easy to see how the production company makes its friends and sticks with them. The primary cast for the three films is startlingly similar, especially with the troupe surrounding Ferrell. It seems David Koechner and Kathryn Hahn, for example, have comedic talents Ferrell and his team enjoy exploiting. The only problematic aspect of their continued cinematic associations is that they never seem to be asked to do anything other than their initial shtick. Fortunately, Ferrell and his team mix it up by infusing other talent, like Steve Carell and Christina Applegate into their otherwise familiar mix.

In Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy, Will Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy, a newscaster in San Diego who is at the top of his game. He wins the nightly ratings battle for the attention of his audience and reports the news with his team, smoking and drinking his way through his sappy deliveries of the nightly news. In the 1970s, Burgundy becomes a legend and his arrogance grows, in part because he is surrounded by sycophants like Champ Kind, Brian Fantana, and weatherman Brick Tamland. But when diversity becomes the word of the day, Burgundy is teamed up with investigative reporter and newscaster Veronica Corningstone.

While Ron works to seduce Veronica, she finds his advances both annoying and charming. When they do hook up, Ron almost immediately violates their privacy by reporting the act. After further incidents which disrespect her, Veronica sets out for revenge. She gets it through Ron's Achilles heel; having Ron swear on air by simply changing his call line on the teleprompter. As Veronica takes over, Ron flounders and his team struggle to get on without him.

Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is essentially a mock documentary of the life of Ron Burgundy and the humor is derived largely from uncomfortable deadpans and such things as one of the characters (Brick) being mentally retarded and socially awkward. The reversals, like Ron promising Veronica he will not say anything about their sex immediately followed by him telling all of his friends, tend to happen quickly and be very predictable. This is not to say the film isn't funny, but it is a very standard sort of absurdist humor for which Will Ferrell is famous. That said, there's not much surprising here.

Ferrell presents Ron Burgundy as a stiff, strangely formal character whose on-air persona never goes away. As a result, when he tries to interact with friends or with Veronica, there come strange deliveries that seem inappropriate for the setting (imagine having a newscaster on a dinner date who spoke with the same deliveries as they did on-air). Ferrell is adept at the deliveries and he makes Ron Burgundy funny as a result. However, because most of the humor is related directly to either delivering the news or scoring with Veronica, much of the movie seems repetitive.

This is where DVD truly pushes a film up; in the bonus features, where Will Ferrell plays Ron Burgundy for an interview, the result is absolutely hilarious. Ferrell is fearless in his presentation of the parody opposite a serious interviewer and the result is comic gold. Similarly, the outtakes and deleted scenes are very funny.

What Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy does best is lampoon the pretensions of the news industry, especially in the way it attempts to make information entertainment. Things like the repeated joke where Burgundy and his team stride toward the camera and look earnestly at it and one another effectively skewer the way actual news organizations try to blur the lines between disseminating information and keeping an audience hooked with personalities. Of course, the movie is not at all just social commentary, which is made evident by the battle royale that occurs between Ron Burgundy's news crew and those of the competing stations (which is little more than an excuse for cameos by people like Ben Stiller). That scene creates a parody of violence and offsets the predictable and slow moments revolving around the news story of the decade, a pregnant panda at the San Diego zoo.

All of the actors are thoroughly invested in their roles and it is hard to actually criticize the acting here. While Ferrell and Koechner do their usual schtick - they play off one another wonderfully - and Fred Willard plays the station manager pretty much exactly as any fan of his would predict, other performers nail their roles. Steve Carell, for example, establishes his dry wit on the big screen perfectly as Brick. He has a dry delivery that underplays any form of sarcasm and given that this is one of his roles before The Office, it is easy to see how he got that role. He plays Brick as a hapless mentally challenged individual and that works.

But the real standout for acting has to be Christina Applegate. Yes, Christina Applegate, whose fame was predicated on her looks, appears in Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy as Veronica and she is impressive. Veronica is basically the straightman to Ron's absurdity and Applegate plays off Ferrell's over-the-top comic sense with an understated delivery that makes her the perfect foil. More than that, she plays Veronica as incredibly smart and she seems mature and intelligent enough to plausibly be in the place she is. Applegate is a surprise who steals all of her scenes.

This is quite a feat when one considers that much of the movie is spent with the characters staring at the camera delivering lines. When not doing that, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is simple hoping to grab laughs off the look of the 1970s personas. Ron dresses in a maroon suit and he and his companions have big-70s hair. Those jokes replay less well than the satirical comments on the news industry but they still work.

Largely, though, Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy is good, escapist humor that sets out to get some laughs and it does that. It does little more than that, but it works for what it is.

For other works with David Koechner, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Piranha 3DD
Paul
Extract
Sex Drive
Get Smart
Let’s Go To Prison
Farce Of the Penguins
Thank You For Smoking
The 40 Year Old Virgin
Waiting . . .

6/10

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

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

A Surprisingly Zestless Romantic Comedy, Along Came Polly Simmers.

The Good: Some very funny moments, Interesting characters
The Bad: Acting is derivative, Characters end up as types, Very predictable
The Basics: While not terrible, Along Came Polly is an ultimately underwhelming romantic comedy that can safely be skipped.


Last night my wife got to pick the movie we watched. She was still a little sore at me for the way Memento did not actually end and she decided to use her choice of movie night to share with me one of the few romantic comedies she enjoys. That took the form of Along Came Polly. My wife likes both Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, so Along Came Polly was a pretty natural movie to appear in her permanent collection. Before we watched it, she defined the movie for me as her favorite film she ever picked up in Wal-Mart’s $5.00 bin. And after watching it with her, I can pretty much see why.

Along Came Polly is shockingly average and for one who is not a fan of romantic comedies, as my wife is (not, I am), I was surprised how painfully formulaic the movie was. Without even overanalyzing how predictable the initial events of the film were – i.e. the fact that Debra Messing who starts the film paired with Ben Stiller is not billed very high, making it obvious to anyone who has seen pretty much any movie that her character will make a quick exit - Along Came Polly is structured like a writing class project for the archetypal romantic comedy. All that shakes it up from being average is a few uncommonly humorous moments. Unfortunately, those moments are pretty equally balanced by the acting, which is in no way extraordinary, merely the performers playing within the bounds they have clearly established in other roles before this one.

Reuben Feffer is thrilled to marry his best friend, Lisa. On their honeymoon to St. Barts, however, Lisa has an affair with the scuba instructor, which Reuben walks in on. Returning to New York alone and looking toward a pretty bleak future moving into the house he bought for both of them, Reuben agrees to go out on a few dates, per his best friend’s recommendation. While at an art opening, they run into Polly Prince, a woman they knew in their childhood. Reuben decides to see who Polly has become since middle school and he asks her out.

Polly could not be more different than the insurance analyst. Reuben assesses risk for a living and he has trouble getting Polly to commit to eating a meal out more than a day in advance. When they go out for spicy food, Reuben ends up drenched in sweat and in an awkward bathroom situation. But, oddly, Polly remains strangely undeterred and they go dancing and have another dinner, which Reuben’s parents interrupt. As Reuben tries to assess the risk for a thrillseeking client, he and Polly get closer and the relationship seems to be heading in a direction that gives Reuben the potential to move on . . . until Lisa resurfaces!

Along Came Polly seems to be much more appreciated by the general populace based on the strength of the cast and it is hard to argue that Along Came Polly is not well-staffed. Led by Ben Stiller as Reuben, Along Came Polly balances Stiller with Jennifer Aniston (Polly) and features Debra Messing (Lisa), Alec Baldwin (Reuben’s boss, Stan), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reuben’s best friend, Sandy), Hank Azaria (looking pretty cut, especially for a voice actor!), and several others in even more minor roles. Along Came Polly has a good cast and everyone who appears in the movie appears well-cast for the role that they are in.

In fact, that is one of the issues with Along Came Polly. The casting is entirely unimaginative for the roles. Ben Stiller, especially, suffers as Reuben because it is little more than a retread of the character he played in The Royal Tenenbaums. We get it, Stiller can do a balance of neurotic and deeply damaged. The problem with Stiller as Reuben in Along Came Polly is that he offers us nothing new (except a shot of his butt). Stiller did this role half a decade prior . . . what’s new?

As for the rest of the cast, it is fine, but similarly unremarkable. As the title role in Along Came Polly, Jennifer Aniston would seem to be a highlight, but her performance is surprisingly unmemorable. Aniston is upstaged in every scene she shares with her character’s blind ferret. Aniston is good at playing a free spirit, but for someone who is supposed to be living life in an exciting way, Polly is actually remarkably mundane. Sure, she salsa dances and eats spicy food, but those are really the only two risky behaviors we see her engage in, so she is not much of a contrast to Reuben. Aniston, for her part, does what she can with the role, but it’s not a spectacular role.

The supporting performances in Along Came Polly are equally average, with none of the other actors wowing viewers (though Bob Dishy’s part as Reuben’s father amused me). Moreover, Along Came Polly is almost painfully formulaic, which does not give viewers any real surprises that fit the film. As much as I wanted to like Along Came Polly, the structure of it was very basic, very direct and pretty much the literal rendering of a romantic comedy by the numbers, from the challenges to the relationship that arise to the sidekick best friend’s character arc.

What saves Along Came Polly from being considered completely mundane is the humor in the film. There are several funny lines in Along Came Polly, like the way Reuben seems fixated on the fact that Lisa and the scuba instructor kept their fins on while having sex. When Reuben’s father speaks, it is amusing and even Stiller’s dancing (which bears an uncomfortable resemblance to his physical comedy in Zoolander) is worthy of a chuckle. But not all of the humor works for Along Came Polly. When Reuben is playing basketball and his face essentially acts as a squeegee for a bare-chested man’s sweat, the gag – in addition to being absolutely gross – feels distractingly generic. It is a gag that could have been done in virtually any movie for the same effect; it does not actually reflect much on Reuben’s character to not want to swallow the man’s sweat.

In the end, Along Came Polly is a simple, standard romantic comedy that lacks the “wow” factor to be truly enduring and, as a result, ends up in the lower ranges of what I consider an “average” film.

For other works with Masi Oka, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Friends With Benefits
Fired Up!
Get Smart
Heroes

4.5/10

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

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

Sandler's Continued Reinvention Leads To Dramedy With 50 First Dates

The Good: Funny, Sweet - in a kind or lame way, Character, Acting
The Bad: Mostly predictable plot, Somewhat repetitive
The Basics: When Henry falls for a woman who continues to relive the same day of her life, he must woo her each day in a surprisingly good dramedy.


I'm not, per se, a fan of Adam Sandler. Nor am I particularly endeared with Drew Barrymore. Actually, that part may not be entirely true; I'm not a fan of the "Hollywood Rumormill Drew Barrymore." That is to say, I get pretty sick and tired of hearing all of the b.s. gossip about her, but have nothing in particular against her as a person nor as an actress. So, in short, my expectations were pretty low for 50 First Dates.

50 First Dates, then, came as a pleasant surprise. That was a kind of backhanded way of recommending this movie; I would have recommended it regardless of my expectations. It was that much better than I had anticipated. Basically, I've seen a string of bad movies that I had high expectations for, so that when a movie meets or exceeds my hopes it's something these days! But I digress.

50 First Dates follows Henry Roth, a geeky marine biologist in Hawaii who meets Lucy Witmore one morning at a local restaurant. Taken with her, he arrives the next morning to discover she has no memory of him. Locals quickly reveal to Henry that Lucy had a severe accident and has spent some time reliving the day over and over again. Her father and brother continue to protect Lucy by allowing themselves to be trapped in Marlin's (Lucy's father) birthday day after day. Henry shakes up Lucy's world and he falls in love with her, trying each day to get her to fall in love with her while earning the trust and respect of Marlin.

The thing about 50 First Dates is that it's not entirely absurd or without its charms. In fact, the only real drawback of the movie is that the plot becomes somewhat repetitive. Henry's attempts to woo Lucy begin to get old around the middle of the movie and that is where the film takes a shift from absurd comedy into something endearing and dramatic. There's also a stretch where the movie becomes less about Henry and Lucy and more about Marlin and Henry, shifting from the romance into the story of a man convincing a protective father he's an all right guy.

The other drawback is the beginning; the movie sets itself up as a ridiculous comedy that isn't quite sure what it wants to be. In establishing Henry at work, the viewer is treated to lame animal gags, stupid vomit humor and a pointless androgynous coworker character that dilutes from the movie's sensibilities and sensitivities.

Once the movie decides to be about Henry's infatuation and growing love for Lucy, it begins to hit its stride. There is genuine humor - though most of those scenes were in the previews - like Henry's use of a penguin to get Lucy's attention and him staging a mugging with his friend Ula. Lucy's psychopathic romp on Ula is hilarious and her brother's steroid-lisp scenes are enough to keep the audience smiling.

What makes this dramedy shine, other than the fact that it quickly rejects the ridiculous humor that would have made it like most any other Adam Sandler movie, is that the characters are interesting and the acting clicks. Henry is pretty much the standard quirky, repressed maniac that Sandler does in just about all of his movies. However, Henry is surrounded by characters that force his realism and make him have more depth. Lucy is more than just a pretty face and an amnesia patient; she is a realistic young woman struggling through her days with different moods and reactions. Part of the charm of 50 First Dates is in seeing Henry adapt to the fact that what works one day will not necessarily win Lucy over the next.

A lot of credit has to go to the acting. Sean Astin plays Doug, Lucy's brother, with an incredible ridiculous quality that is a refreshing change from his role in The Lord Of The Rings. Moreover, Astin's weird lisping character forces Adam Sandler to play Henry more straightlaced. Sandler continues to extend his range beyond what we've seen of him in Mr. Deeds and Punch-Drunk Love, to include more subtlety and less of his rehashing of his Saturday Night Live characters. In 50 First Dates, Sandler explores the depth of sincerity that he began to reveal in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!). Thus, it is Sandler's acting that convinces the viewer of Henry's genuine nature and makes it believable that he could convince Lucy's dad.

Blake Clark plays Martin, Lucy's dad. He's a character actor that usually plays blue collar father-figures and here he plays pretty much the same thing. However, unlike the slacker dad he played in Boy Meets World, his genuine, down-to-Earth nature prevails and makes for a very believable, very loving father. Clark has an aspect to him that makes his characters instantly likable and plausible and it is a pleasure to see him getting work in a decent movie.

It is Drew Barrymore, however, who steals this movie. She's a likable person and the role of Lucy is perfect for her. It allows her to illustrate her cute, flirtatious persona, her fun-loving, genuine side and her angry and disturbed side. Barrymore convinces us that Lucy is more than a cheap joke of someone with memory loss. She enhances the character with unpredictable eye movements and body language, infusing the character with a realism that is seldom achieved in romantic comedies.

In the end, 50 First Dates is a romantic comedy with a surprising amount of depth to it and it's worth your time when you want something lighter, but don't want your intelligence insulted.

For other films involving Drew Barrymore, please check out:
Going The Distance
Whip It
He’s Just Not That Into You
Donnie Darko
Charlie's Angels
Ever After
Batman Forever

7/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Almost As Good As A Film Could Be: As Good As It Gets!

The Good: Amusing, Good acting, Interesting characters, Less than predictable plot
The Bad: Nothing major, Elements of predictability
The Basics: Entertaining, emotional and witty, As Good As It Gets comes close to a perfect comedy by not trying to be unnecessarily funny.


As Good As It Gets is an attempt to make a romantic comedy into something more and something different. It succeeds at the former and almost makes it as the latter. Were it not for the very end of the film and minutiae throughout, As Good As It Gets could live up to its title.

Melvin Udall is a novelist of apparently some success and import. He's obsessive compulsive and probably a hypochondriac. He is determined not to step on cracks in the sidewalk or any surface he walks on, creates an orderly environment where he writes his works and the hypochondria is evident in his obsession with germs and his bringing his own plasticware to the restaurant he habitually dines in.

Being such a pain, only one person in the restaurant who can stand - or handle - Melvin is Carol. Carol puts up with Melvin and they get on despite Melvin's crass remarks. Melvin also offends his neighbor Simon with his open homophobia and ethnic prejudice. The film's action is simple: Melvin offends Carol with a comment about her ailing son and Simon gets mugged. He gets beat up seriously. Melvin is compelled to take care of Simon's dog and in the process, Melvin extends kindness to Carol by getting health care for her ailing son.

The film hinges on the use of the characters around the protagonist. Melvin is an unlikable protagonist and he is surrounded by good and vibrant people. Carol is a wonderful character, Simon is well defined and interesting. He is crushed physically and emotionally throughout the film and it is through Simon that the film becomes something more than a romantic comedy. He's not funny, he's real and that in itself is wonderful.

The minutiae that keep the film from perfection are in Melvin. So much of the film is gotten right with him: he's a germophobe and has a stainless steel refrigerator, he leaves a restaurant with a dress code rather than wear the provided common outfit. And yet, his transformation does not read right in the time frame. While I believe the power of unconditional love is great, but it does not undo at least forty years of prejudice and inconsiderate behavior. And while the argument may be made that Melvin's kindness to Carol and her son is self-serving, it's a weak argument.

The flaw with the end is that, after all the ways the remainder of the film defies the expectation of a romantic comedy, it does not live up to our expectations that the film will continue to challenge us in its resolution.

What works is that - even with the character flaws in the arc of Melvin - the acting is consistently great. Jack Nicholson is wonderful and sardonic as Melvin. Helen Hunt - between this and Pay It Forward (reviewed here!) - proves she can play well a character quite different from herself. Wonderful! Greg Kinnear plays Simon wonderfully with depth that is lacking from so many characters in today's works. Cuba Gooding Jr. performs well as Simon's partner.

When As Good As It Gets attempts humor, it succeeds, when it tries serious and deep, it excels. This film is perfect for those who enjoyed the short-lived series Sports Night (reviewed here!) and is a fine choice for anyone who wants more of their comedies than funny and predictable.

For other works with Jack Nicholson, please visit my reviews of:
The Departed
Terms Of Endearment
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

9/10

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

© 2011, 2007, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Disappointment In A Candy-Smudged Wrapper: Charlie And The Chocolate Factory Slips For Tim Burton.

The Good: Johnny Depp is good, Moments of intriguing visuals
The Bad: Terrible music, Awkward pacing, Uninspired acting, Oppressively unoriginal
The Basics: With distractingly bad music and uninspired acting this remake is a dud. And not a good kind, like a Milk Dud.


Tim Burton has talent and if one does not believe me, they need only to watch Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and Batman Returns to realize that I'm right. Unfortunately, Burton's talent seems to be stuck. While Big Fish was mediocre, Burton's vision of Charlie And The Chocolate Factory is flat-out disappointing.

Living in the poorest section of the city dominated by Wonka Chocolates is Charlie Bucket. Charlie is just a poor boy with nothing to set him apart but his poverty. When the mysterious Willy Wonka offers a tour of his plant to the recipients of five golden tickets hidden in his chocolate bars, Charlie seems unlikely to have any hope of finding one. And yet, of course, he does. Charlie finds a golden ticket and soon he is entering Willy Wonka's chocolate factory.

Accompanied by the obese Augustus, the gum-chewing Violet, the snotty Veruca and the television-obsessed Mike Teavee, Charlie is allowed inside the chocolate factory. However, this is anything but the typical chocolate factory. It is a magical community where confections are experimented to perfection and the reclusive eccentric Willy Wonka lives with his army of Oompa Loompas. As the tour of the factory progresses, the children give in to their specific vices and Charlie is made an offer that would otherwise be quite astounding.

There is a certain irony to the title of this movie and it is quite simple. Like the novel, this is Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. Unlike the earlier film version, which was Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory, which focused heavily on Charlie, this incarnation focuses quite heavily on Willy Wonka.

Which leads us to the fundamental problem with Tim Burton's Charlie And The Chocolate Factory. As Burton's vision, Wonka is given a motivation for his eccentricities and if you've seen a few of Burton's movies you know the reason has to be parent issues. Willy was criticized and emotionally abandoned by his father, a dentist and . . . okay, who cares? It's the same story Burton is always telling. Unfortunately, the predictability of Burton's cause for conflict leads viewers who have seen many of his other projects to be disappointed. It's not a bad thing to make Wonka a more fleshed out character, but the method is just tired.

And this is on top of other, more serious problems unique to this particular film. The first is that while the film relies - often successfully - on stunning visuals, the film's composer, Danny Elfman seems to be in a similar rut to Burton. Elfman is known to create masterful and haunting scores that work very well with Burton's visual sense. Elfman creates the winter of Gotham City in Batman Returns far better than any of the snow Burton created on the set. In Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, the music is unmemorable.

Except for the Oompa Loompa songs. The Oompa Loompa songs are entirely terrible. Jazzed or rocked up, the Oompa Loompas sing about the demise of the various children and the music that accompanies them is more loud than funny or poignant. It's not clever, it's not catchy, it's barely music and this costs the film a great deal of impact or interest.

The other big problem is the acting. Far too much of the story relies on the acting of child actors and they fail to deliver. Freddie Highmore lacks the charm and charisma of the actor that played Charlie in Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. While on screen, his performance is stiff and often painfully unrealistic. The children that play Violet, Veruca, Mike and Augustus are equally uncharismatic.

What saves the movie at all is Johnny Depp. Playing Wonka as weird and delightful, disturbed and invigorated, Depp steals the spotlight from the moment he appears on-screen. No one else comes close to making the movie watchable and Depp's performance keeps this from being a complete waste of time.

Deep Roy, who plays the Oompa Loompas, does fine, though much of his time on-screen is participating in the terrible musical numbers.

Geared overly for children, this movie robs the characters of their ambiguities. All of the kids but Charlie are rotten, Charlie is ultimate good. Removing a key scene from the beginning of the movie, which was present in the book and the other film, sets us a series of absolutes, which makes the ending completely unsurprising, even for those who never read the novel or saw the other film.

Both the book, which is creepy and clever, and the film adaptation known as Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory are vastly superior to this version.

For other films featuring Johnny Depp, please visit my reviews of:
Alice In Wonderland
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Edward Scissorhands

3.5/10

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

© 2010, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Storyteller's Happy Ending: Big Fish Is Strangely Mediocre.

The Good: Excellent cast, Decent acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Plot is not engaging, Quirky for quirky sake
The Basics: In a Johnny Depp-less Tim Burton movie, a young man attempts to piece together his father's life, outside the tall tales he has been told all his life.


First of all, I have been a bit of a fan of Tim Burton's work since Beetlejuice. I think Batman Returns was his masterpiece and I was impressed by the depressing Edward Scissorhands. I even gave The Nightmare Before Christmas a fair shot, though I didn't like it. But in my mind, Tim Burton is synonymous with darkness. When I see a Burton film, I am expecting big, dark, thematically heavy and powerful. I ended up agonizing over this review because my first instinct was to dislike Big Fish. The more I thought about it, however, the more I understood that I was punishing Tim Burton for trying something new. Big Fish is not Burton's sellout, it's his attempt to break his own mold and push off in a new direction. And he, despite my personal preferences, succeeds.

As Ed Bloom lays dying, his son William makes a last attempt to piece together his father's life. His problem is that he has little frame of reference outside his father's tall tales. So, William reviews the stories his father has told him and seeks out those who knew him to try to know his father before the old man dies.

My problem is that I'm heartless. I took long enough to grow up, so now I don't look at the world with childlike wonder. Big Fish is a rousing attempt to recapture the feeling that your parent is the most powerful, most interesting person in the world. So, where people I saw the movie with were tearing up at the end, I saw it as the logical conclusion to the movie. It's a matter of taste. I'm not someone who delves into regression . . . well, ever. Reverting to a child doesn't interest me. For those it does, Big Fish is for you.

Visually, there are a lot of Tim Burton elements in Big Fish, though they are nowhere near as dark or big as in some of his other films. Instead, Burton's distinctive style comes into play in introducing new characters and new places. It's easy to tell what Burton wants you to see in this movie. Unlike something like Batman Returns, where Burton gives viewers a big canvas and lets your eye look around for the significant movement, Big Fish often keeps the camera focused closely on the action or widens out to big shots where there is only one character moving.

The characters in Big Fish are quirky and fun, though there is some element to the movie that simply feels like it is being quirky for the sake of being a Burton film, not out of any organic sense of how the story is being told. For example, the contrast between Danny DeVito's diminutive circus ringleader and the giant Karl establishes two intriguing, characters. That DeVito's character turns out to be a werewolf as well just seems a ridiculous addition.

Outside that sense, though, the characters are interesting and - as one might expect - bigger than life. The essential characters, however are Ed and Will Bloom. Ed is characterized perfectly as the kind old patriarch in the present tense and the eager, adventurous hero in his stories. The personification of the young Ed Bloom fits perfectly the Ed that he has become at this late stage of his life.

Similarly, Will is portrayed quite well as a son desperate to know his father, eager to cut through all of the layers to get to the truth. Will is very easy to relate to as the audience feels very connected with his desire to get to the reality of his father's life. The character's clear flaw is in his belief that the amazing world his father has portrayed is not the real world of his father. That is Will's journey.

What ultimately saves the movie is excellent acting by the entire cast. Danny DeVito and Robert Guillaume give smashing performances in their supporting roles. They take small parts in fiction and reality and make them their own. Similarly, Billy Crudup does an excellent job portraying Will. With his determination in his eyes and the way he carries himself, he makes the viewer believe in the importance of his character's quest.

It is Ewan McGregor and Albert Finney who steal the energy of the movie as the young and older Ed Bloom. Ewan brings vitality, youth and energy to the bigger than life Bloom as he enthusiastically travels around on his quests. McGregor's command of fast dialog easily convince the audience that he could get the girl and that's nice to see. Finney's part is to sell the audience on the man Ed has become. He plays the kind patriarch very well, with an ease that makes one believe that Finney - and not just Ed - can tell a killer tall tale.

In the end, this is a fairy tale for adults. If you're the kind of person who finds themselves sitting down occasionally and enjoying a Dr. Seuss book, Big Fish is for you. If you're someone who loves listening to the old fishers down by the dock talking about the big one they caught and you lean forward to hear just how much bigger the fish has become in the current telling of the story, Big Fish is for you. If you like Tim Burton's dark, oppressive, operative films, go back to one you've seen before. If you want to see what Burton's range is, Big Fish is out there. But it may be hard for you to swallow.

For other works by Tim Burton, please check out my reviews of:
Alice In Wonderland
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Batman Returns
Edward Scissorhands

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page!

© 2010, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |