Lackluster Love: Phantom Thread Blends Boredom And Beauty

The Good: Decent performances and cinematography
The Bad: Pacing, Dull characters, Virtually plotless, Flaccid characters
The Basics: P.T. Anderson disappoints with Phantom Thread.


In the ten days since I saw Phantom Thread, I have been trying to muster up the enthusiasm to write about the cinematic experience. I love the works of writer/director P.T. Anderson. Indeed, in my life full of experiences, one of my most enjoyable memories of an event I attended was a screening with Anderson at which I had a chance to stump the artist with an insightful question and meet him. Ever since Magnolia (reviewed here!), I have been a loyal devotee of P.T. Anderson's works. So, after weeks of trying to find a movie theater within 200 miles playing Anderson's latest, Phantom Thread, I was particularly excited when it was playing at a theater a block away from the hotel I was staying on my recent business trip. My first night on the road, I eagerly went to see Phantom Thread.

And, wow, was I disappointed.

Phantom Thread is no Magnolia. It's no Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!) even. The comparison between Punch-Drunk Love and Phantom Thread is an important one; Punch-Drunk Love featured two characters - one in deep emotional pain, the other who appears to be straitlaced and intensely normal - and the two develop an unlikely romantic relationship that builds to an important moment when the expectations about Emily Watson's character are suddenly and brilliantly subverted. Punch-Drunk Love is complicated, quirky, and artistically-delivered in a way that encourages rewatching. Phantom Thread is just boring. Phantom Thread lacks a spark of intrigue or chemistry between the two protagonists (whereas, in Punch-Drunk Love the important character aspect of the protagonist is clearly laid out - he is a man constantly betrayed who is looking for love and needs the security of someone who will not subvert his trust - and he has impressive chemistry with his romantic partner). Unlike something where there are two people who, on the surface, seem to have nothing in common developing a romance, Phantom Thread is plagued by two characters who have nothing in common, no chemistry, and no real interest in one another insisting that they are in a relationship of some sort (it never appears actually romantic).

Reynolds Woodcock is a fashion designer in London, where he runs an upscale boutique with his sister. His dresses are highly sought-after and he goes for breakfast at a little restaurant where Alma works. Woodcock asks Alma out (though it is phrased more as a demand) and he insists on bringing her back to his fashion house where he uses her as a mannequin to design a new dress. After a series of such moments where Woodcock uses Alma's body as a form for his new works, Alma starts to realize that she is not actually important to Woodcock. So, she poisons him so he will be helpless and is forced to rely upon her, but - of course - as soon as he gets better, he reverts to neglecting her.

And it's 2 hours and ten minutes of Daniel Day-Lewis acting stiff, focused, and unlikable. Day-Lewis is fine playing such an emotionally-distant and, on a moment's notice, angry character, but it seems like a truly weird note to end his acting career on. In a similar way, Vicky Krieps plays Alma well as a woman who is subtly begging for affection - though she is not given enough of a role to sufficiently explain why Alma accepts Woodcock from the beginning to make her character at all compelling. And Lesley Manville makes Cyril weird and authoritative through her performance . . . though the character is not particularly interesting.

P.T. Anderson directs Phantom Thread beautifully, but that does not make the story any more compelling, less boring or worth writing more about.

2.5/10

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

© 2018 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Goofy, Grassed, Grand - Inherent Vice Translates Pynchon To Screen Well!

The Good: Wonderful acting, Distinct setting, Fun-to-watch characters, Good direction
The Bad: Unnecessary narrations, Needlessly complex at points
The Basics: Not as fun as reading Pynchon, P.T. Anderson makes a compelling film with Inherent Vice that captures the ‘70s drug culture in California well.


Without a doubt, the film I was most excited about in 2014 was The Zero Theorem (reviewed here!). While that might seem like a strange place to begin my review of Inherent Vice, it might make more sense when I note that Inherent Vice is this year’s The Zero Theorem. Allow me to explain; in 2013, The Zero Theorem was put into very limited release in the U.S. right around my birthday and my plan was to go see it with my wife on the big screen as part of that personal event. Alas, it was not to be; the film was delayed repeatedly in the U.S. and came out here in even limited release than it was supposed to! In 2014, the earliest showings of Inherent Vice also seemed like they would coincide with my birthday, but the film was delayed until Oscar Pandering Season. The result was a delayed sense of excitement for the film.

Add to that, Inherent Vice lives in the shadow of The Master (reviewed here!), a film that ruined my birthday back in 2012. Seriously. My wife saved up to pay for the day out and we made a whole event of driving to a theater that was actually showing The Master, because of my love of the works of writer/director P.T. Anderson and then the film sucked righteous balls (is, I believe, the delicate, p.c. way of saying it). So, Inherent Vice became a film I was excited about, but I did not attach a temporal limitation on that excitement. Now out in wide release, I finally managed to see the latest film by P.T. Anderson.

Inherent Vice is based upon the novel Inherent Vice (reviewed here!) by Thomas Pynchon and it is worth noting that while I have read and reviewed the book, this shall remain a very pure review of the film alone. That said, it’s a pretty exciting thing for me to see one of my favorite directors tackle the work of one of my favorite authors. While I have so far considered The Big Lebowski (reviewed here!) the most Pynchon-esque film I’ve yet seen, I was eager to see how Anderson would do with actual Pynchon.

And P.T. Anderson got it right more often than not. Before watching Inherent Vice, my only real trepidation with the idea of an adaptation of Pynchon’s works was that Pynchon’s diction is much of the magic of his novels. He can get away with a certain amount of crazy plotting and random twists because his poetics are amazing. Lacking that, how it would translate to screen seemed uncertain, but Anderson, who adapted Pynchon’s novel, respects much of the author’s writing by using voiceover narration surprisingly well. And, Anderson chose one of Pynchon’s more linear narratives to adapt for the screen!

Doc Sportello is laying in bed one night when his ex-girlfriend, Shasta, shows up. She asks the private detective for help with a situation she is in; her married boyfriend, Mickey Wolfmann is in trouble. Wolfmann's wife, Sloane, and her lover are trying to run a scam and they want Shasta’s help. Sloane wants to commit Mickey to an assylum and run off with his wealth and he wants Shasta to assist him in the con, which has led Shasta to a strange moral quandary. Wolfmann’s name comes up prominently in Sportello’s first case the next day when Tariq Khalil (of the Black Guerilla movement) hires him to get money out of a member of the Aryan Brotherhood with whom he’d done business. Sportello heads out to where Channel View Estates are being built by Wolfmann’s company and there he discovers the only operating unit is a “massage” parlor.

But soon, Sportello’s problems multiply as his search for Charlock end with Sportello knocked out and awakening to a interrogation by his nemesis, LAPD detective “Bigfoot” Bjornsen about Charlock’s murder and Wolfmann and Shasta’s disappearance. While Sportello is apparently rescued by his lawyer (who is more a marine law lawyer than a criminal lawyer) and released upon his own reconnaissance, he soon finds himself in the crosshairs of the LAPD, FBI, and various criminal enterprises, including Golden Fang gangsters who own the boat by the same name. As drug-smuggling criminals, corrupt cops and swindlers manipulate Sportello, he is knocked around Gordita Beach as a tool for their various interests.

Inherent Vice, like the book, is filled with characters who are goofy and several who are only incidental to the “main” storyline being presented. Hope Harlington’s investigation into her husband’s “murder” and subsequent windfall deposit into her bank account is seemingly random until Coy Harlington turns up as a target of the Golden Fang. With so many characters, some get severely underused – like Dr. Blatnoyd, D.A. Kimball and Smilax (Doc’s lawyer) – and serve more to deliver plot exposition. Conversely, Sortilege might provide some beautiful narration in the form of Pynchon’s lines as voiceovers, but her part in the movie captures the time and place (1970’s California beach country) and the absurdities of it more than provide a real or viable character (her voiceovers about astrology are cringeworthy, but fit the character fine).

What Inherent Vice does well is showcase the talents of director P.T. Anderson and the actors he chose for the film. Inherent Vice might well prove that The Master was an exception to the rule of Anderson’s greatness as a writer-director. In adapting Pynchon’s novel, Anderson was able to take the essential elements of the story and bring to life a sense of Pynchon’s quirky characters. No matter how ridiculous the plot or characters get at various points in Inherent Vice, Anderson makes the film look great and he makes it all feel very much part of the same, distinct setting and narrative.

To make Inherent Vice work, the giant cast had to be fleshed out with amazing talents and fans of Anderson’s works like Magnolia (reviewed here!) and Boogie Nights (reviewed here!) will be unsurprised that he has once again assembled a memorable ensemble cast. Leading the cast are Joaquin Phoenix as Doc Sportello and Josh Brolin as Bigfoot. I’ve never been a fan of Phoenix’s performances – save in Her (reviewed here!) – but as the drug-addled detective Doc Sportello, Joaquin Phoenix nails it! Phoneix taps into the depth of his performance arsenal and comes up with completely credible body language and line deliveries for a befuddled, confused, tool of a protagonist and he makes Sportello work in ways I did not anticipate when the casting for Inherent Vice was first announced!

At the other end of the spectrum, Josh Brolin gives a solid performance as Bigfoot Bjornsen. Brolin’s magic is in playing the part entirely straightlaced; Bigfoot is a character who is a parody of a cop who does not realize he is a joke. Brolin balances the serious line-deliveries with utterly goofy physical comedy (Bjornsen has an oral fixation that Brolin brings to life perfectly!).

The rest of the cast, including Jena Malone, Owen Wilson, Benicio Del Toro, Martin Short, Reese Witherspoon, Sam Jaeger, Eric Roberts, and Katherine Waterston do a decent job of balancing expository backstory to make their characters pop with performances that show instead of tell who they are supposed to be. The result is a film that has moments of peril, but is dominated by a fun, weird, sensibility that one used to only look to the Coen Brothers for (on film); now, P.T. Anderson gives them a run for their money and Inherent Vice delivers an engaging experience for moviegoers!

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Last Five Years
The Voices
Love, Rosie
The Seventh Son
Song One
Project Almanac
Match
Vice
American Sniper

8/10

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

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

Lonely And Appropriately Epic, There Will Be Blood Is Engaging, But Lacking Spark.

The Good: Acting, Pacing, Most of the plotting
The Bad: No pop, Unlikable characters or characters we fail to empathize with.
The Basics: There Will Be Blood illustrates that P.T. Anderson can deliver an adapted screenplay that makes amazing use of the screen, but the film still lacks some of the zest and originality of his other films.


Shortly after my wife and I moved into our new apartment last year, P.T. Anderson released a new film. I was excited; I have generally loved his works, especially Magnolia (reviewed here!) and I was eager to see his latest film. So, for my birthday, my wife treated me to a trip downstate to the nearest theater we could find that was playing The Master (reviewed here!) and, unfortunately, it was a tremendous waste of time, money, and enthusiasm. Prior to that trip, I had picked up the two-disc version of Anderson’s prior film, There Will Be Blood, but after The Master, it was hard to convince my wife to crack the case open and let us watch it. Now, over a year later, she was in the mood for something different and I had let the sting of Anderson’s lone cinematic failure fade, so I figured it was a good time to put in There Will Be Blood.

There Will Be Blood is almost everything that it is hyped to be: it looks beautiful, the acting is incredible, and the themes in the story are smart and sweeping. But watching the film, I found myself waiting. I was waiting for the movie to pop, I was waiting for the intellectual engagement to click and for the movie to become something I was actually enjoying. Anderson’s first work, Hard Eight (reviewed here!) features characters that one is almost instantly able to empathize with as they haplessly stumble about trying to do the right thing and in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), Anderson managed to make Adam Sandler’s character into an utterly heartbreaking figure who is betrayed by everyone he trusts in such wrenching ways that it is virtually impossible to look away. After a five minute opening sequence without a single line, Anderson adequately sets the mood for There Will Be Blood, but the movie never evolves into anything more than a history lesson of sorts. The two principle characters have a battle of wills and their motivations are clear for the most part, but they lack either an epic significance or a deeply personal humanity that Anderson’s characters usually possess. As a result, There Will Be Blood is essentially two titanic egos facing off.

Starting in 1898, in California, Daniel Plainview is an oil prospector who suffers an accident in one of his mines while searching for oil, breaking his leg. Years later, having successfully struck oil, he is running a rig when one of the workers is killed by a piece of falling equipment. Daniel takes H.W. as his own son and uses him as a prop when selling the family nature of his drilling business as he heads west. Eager to buy up land to grow his business, Daniel, his assistant Fletcher, and H.W. hear out a prospect from Paul Sunday, a young man who believes there is oil on his family farm. Arriving at the Sunday farm, Daniel and H.W. find a young man who looks identical to Paul, who seems resistant to having the oil company lease the land. Working out an arrangement where Daniel will help fund Eli Sunday’s church and help sway some of the local landowners to lease land for the oil company to drill on, Daniel and his son begin to change the landscape of the otherwise barren township.

Over the years, the tensions between Eli and Daniel rise. Daniel snubs Eli when it comes to opening the well (Eli wanting to perform a public blessing on the rig) and when Daniel’s plan to make an oil pipeline to the Pacific forces him to negotiate with a holdout in Eli’s parish, Eli manipulates Daniel into getting baptized at his church. Daniel’s life spirals into rage and drunkenness when H.W. is wounded during a rig explosion. Sending H.W. away leads to resentment, tension, and an ultimate conflict that leaves Daniel alone with only his spite and massive oil interests.

Daniel Plainview is played by Daniel Day-Lewis and the performance is so masterful that one would never guess that he’s a Brit from the role. Day-Lewis carries his character’s limp through the entire film and speaks in a slower, lower drawl than in his other roles, clearly distinguishing Plainview from anyone else he has ever played.

The rest of the performances are equally impressive. Paul Dano is so good as Paul and Eli that, until the ultimate revelation that they are twins, the character could easily be a young man suffering from a multiple personality disorder. The ever-masterful Ciaran Hinds may be relegated to a bit role, but he plays it with enough gravity to consistently draw the eye. Kevin J. O’Connor steals every second he is on screen as Daniel’s “brother from another mother” Henry. O’Connor plays the role with more confidence than his usual characters and that is refreshing to see. Even child (not, as it turns out) actor Dillon Freasier is impressive in the role of H.W.

But where There Will Be Blood has a tendency to fall down is in the character details. Why does H.W. burn Henry’s bed? Why doesn’t Daniel move on from the one set of rigs when his oil empire expands? How the hell does P.T. Anderson expect us to care about the climactic events between Daniel and H.W. and Daniel and Eli when some fifteen years elapse in the narrative?!

Anderson makes There Will Be Blood move along, despite long stretches without dialogue. And There Will Be Blood looks beautiful. The film is shot with great framing, wonderful scenery and special effects that look entirely real. In fact, I cannot think of a film in recent memory I have looked forward to watching the bonus features for as much as There Will Be Blood. But is it Anderson’s best? Not by a long shot. Fortunately, it is nowhere near his worst, either.

For other works with Paul Dano, please check out my reviews of:
12 Years A Slave
Looper
Cowboys & Aliens
Knight And Day
Where The Wild Things Are
Fast Food Nation
Little Miss Sunshine

6.5/10

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

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

P.T. Anderson Loses It (And Me) With The Master!

The Good: Costumes, Cinematography
The Bad: Plot, Acting, Characters, Lack of spark
The Basics: The Master is P.T. Anderson’s cinematic low point.


I am a fan of P.T. Anderson’s works. In fact, I like the guy, too. I had the chance to meet him a few years back in Rochester, New York, when Boogie Nights and Punch-Drunk Love were inducted into the permanent collection at the George Eastman House. I know I was the biggest fan of P.T. Anderson’s works at the screening and Q&A session because I was the only person who asked a question (two, actually) that could not have been asked by simply watching any of P.T. Anderson’s films with the commentary tracks on (or any of the other bonus features). It was pretty cool to stump the director of a film by asking an insightful, unexpected question.

Living in Northern Michigan, there was nowhere local that was getting P.T. Anderson’s latest film, The Master. So, as the centerpiece to my birthday celebration, my wife and I drove 282.4 miles (round trip) to go downstate to one of the theaters that was playing The Master. All of this is to explain just how much I appreciate the works of P.T. Anderson and how much I was looking forward to The Master. Only when a reader understands that about me and understands that I have not at all changed my standards to review the film, can they understand the full impact and truth behind my analysis of the experience of seeing The Master in theaters:

The flavoring on the popcorn, a bacon cheddar sprinkle on flavoring, and the orange frozen drink that tasted exactly like a creamsicle, were the high points of the film experience.

Yes, as unfortunate as it is to say, P.T. Anderson managed to make his utter dud right after one of my other favorite directors, Kevin Smith, made his big dud. Red State (reviewed here!) was a real shift in Kevin Smith’s works and it made for an abrupt change in his works, isolating much of his fan base. The Master is a similarly abrupt and disturbingly bad work by P.T. Anderson. (Terry Gilliam’s next work had better not suck, lest I lose my faith in American filmmakers altogether!)

For fans of P.T. Anderson, The Master shows some incredible departures from P.T. Anderson’s style and expertise. Unlike his prior works, the film is noticeably lacking in an immediate musical impression (Anderson frequently uses music to enhance mood and establish character aspects and conflicts that are not immediately evident) and the silence that opens the film is continued through the awkward and consistently unpleasant characters and the aimless, plotless, story. The Master lacks the strong themes, articulate dialog, interesting characters, and all-around excellence in filmmaking that one expects from P.T. Anderson.

Freddie Quell is a veteran coming out of the second World War. Pretty much a psychopath who can’t keep a job and who drinks any liquid that he comes across – fluid from bombs, photographic chemicals, etc. – Quell is having trouble adjusting to post-war life. One night, he sneaks on a ship, the boat that Lancaster Dodd and his family are traveling on. Following his daughter’s wedding on the ship, Lancaster – known as The Master to most around him – and his wife Peggy reveal that Lancaster is working on his second book and he and his followers are doing research aboard the boat.

Quell falls in with the group, becoming a de facto enforcer against those who speak out against the teachings of the Master. Struggling to quit drinking and reign in his animal impulses, Freddie finds himself in conflict with the burgeoning philosophical group. As Lancaster Dodd releases his second book, his followers and Freddie find themselves in a state of perpetual conflict.

The Master includes Anderson’s regular Philip Seymour Hoffman and Hoffman seems lost amid Anderson’s uncharacteristically droll dialogue. Lancaster Dodd hardly speaks like a human being and the lack of poetics in the script make one feel like they are listening to a composer who suddenly lost all ability to hear music. Anderson’s language has previously had a music to it, but The Master is entirely tonedeaf.

Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell and the entire length of The Master all I saw was Sean Penn. Phoenix is performing Sean Penn in one of Penn’s eccentric roles and he’s doing a second-rate impression. Freddie Quell is twitchy and drunk, with an incestuous past and a pedophilic desire for a local girl he left year before. Phoenix sells the role only to the extent that he gets through the part, making one believe he is actually drinking toxic beverages. But for the most part, Joaquin Phoenix plays Sean Penn playing a twitchy jerk.

Amy Adams is similarly unimpressive as Peggy, Lancaster’s wife. Very early on in the film, she presents the character in such a way that makes it clear that she is the Master, the puppeteer behind the puppet that is Lancaster.

But that simple reversal does not make The Master any more intriguing or good. Instead, the most the film has going for it is one or two stray shots (the water behind the boat at the opening and middle of the film is very pretty) and the costuming which clearly establishes the 1950s exceptionally well. The rumor surrounding The Master is that Scientologists had problems with the film because of the cultlike nature of Dodd’s works and the devotion of his followers (many of which parallel Philip K. Dick’s creation of Scientology). While some Scientologists might take issue with the idea that the author, like Lancaster Dodd, just made things up as he went along, far more offensive (I would suspect) is how the movie is just plain bad. After all, it is one thing to have one’s religion, cult, or belief system lampooned, it is entirely another to have it play a mediocre role in a terrible film with underdeveloped characters, a lousy sense of conflict, an utter lack of visual or auditory poetry, and performances that only highlight the lack of a crisp script.

For other films by P.T. Anderson, please check out my reviews of:
Hard Eight
Boogie Nights
Magnolia
Punch-Drunk Love

2/10

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.
| | |

Boogie Nights: The Weirdest Family Story From One Of America's Greatest Writer-Directors!

The Good: Characters, Story, DVD bonuses, Acting
The Bad: It feels long at times
The Basics: When Eddie Adams runs away to join the porn industry, he finds family with Jack Horner and his crew in an excellent DVD set!


There are very few artists whose works I will go to see without reading reviews and carefully deciding about the current project. Indeed, there are only three writer-directors whose films would instantly get me into the theaters: Terry Gilliam, Kevin Smith, and P.T. Anderson. Anderson won my heart and attentions with Magnolia (reviewed here!), which made my list of Top Ten Movies of all Time. Following that, I checked out his debut, Hard Eight (reviewed here!) or "Sydney" as he prefers it to be called. Ironically, his breakout film, Boogie Nights, was the last film by him that I watched.

Set in the late 1970's in California, young Eddie Adams is working a menial job at a nightclub when porn director Jack Horner walks in and takes notice of him. Horner is convinced that Eddie is physiologically gifted and made for doing porn. Following a fight with his mother, Eddie runs away to Jack's mansion where he finds himself in the company of the illustrious porn stars Amber Waves and the equally young Rollergirl. Eddie changes his name to Dirk Diggler and becomes the porn star Jack is convinced he could be.

But with the advent of the '80's and the rise of video tape, Horner's porn empire and Diggler's career head into a nose-dive. Diggler becomes pathetically hooked on cocaine such that he cannot sustain his erections, Amber becomes lost in an obsessive quest to see her child and Jack finds himself churning out crap on video that makes him ashamed of what he does and who he is. As things tumble out of control for the principles, Diggler and Horner slowly realize how important they were to one another's lives.

Boogie Nights, despite being a film about the porn industry and the performers and denizens of it, is essentially the story of a family. Jack Horner and Amber Waves have an untraditional family that takes in the various elements of their work, most notably Rollergirl and Diggler. But they have an extended family that includes Diggler's costar Reed Rothchild, black porn star Buck Swope, the gay sound tech Scotty J., and Little Bill, the producer whose wife is constantly cheating on him. Indeed, it is Little Bill who marks the change of the decade when he deals with the infidelity of his wife and starts the '80's off with a serious change.

But weird as the family may be, this is essentially a piece that looks at the family; what creates one, what binds one, how they fall apart and what strengths exist within the family to bring the members back again. It's an adult film that explores poor decisions, living with consequences and the resiliency that comes with . . . well, love. Yes, indeed, if there is any common element in the works of P.T. Anderson, it is the strength of love and its weird resiliency. His film Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!) was possibly the most explicit with that, but Boogie Nights gets there, too.

The thing about Boogie Nights that might throw a lot of more moderate moviegoers is that it uses the porn industry as a setting and it fearlessly explores that setting. This means the film has a bit of nudity and as the '80's progress, there's some pretty extreme amounts of drug use and violence as well. But where the setting works most effectively is in the peripheral areas; the borders between the porn world and the real world. The '70's insulate Horner and his weird family and they thrive as a continual party. As the '80's begin and the family falls apart, much of what collapses is the isolation Horner and his band of merry actors have. And therein, the film takes its toughest look at the world.

For example, Buck Swope has a lifelong dream of owning an electronics store, specifically a stereo shop. He starts a family and makes a stab at respectability but in leaving the Industry, he finds no welcome in the real world. Prejudiced against him for the jobs he had as an actor, Swope's dreams are almost all systematically crushed by those existing in the "real world." (The resolution to Buck's character is discussed hilariously by Don Cheadle, who played Buck, on one of the two commentary tracks. Seriously, it's one of the funniest bits on any commentary track ever!) In a similar fashion, Amber's desire to be around her child is thwarted and Rollergirl discovers there's no escape for one as young as her from all she has done.

Boogie Nights has a pretty massive cast, so on its lush two-disc DVD set, bonus features extensively explore all that was cut in order to make the movie what it is. The frightening aspect of the film is how much more ambitious P.T. Anderson was prepared to make it, versus how it ended up. That is not to say that it is not ambitious, because it is, but Anderson describes - and illustrates through many deleted scenes - just how much more there could have been. Anderson has a commentary track by himself as well as a second commentary track featuring various cast members. Both commentary tracks are informative and entertaining.

Other bonus features include outtakes, full improv sessions where actors Mark Wahlberg and John C. Reilly simply play off one another and warm up to one another, and extensive cast and crew biographies as well as character biographies for the principle characters.

The reason moderate - adult - filmgoers ought not to be intimidated by the two and a half hour epic about a porn film family is that the movie is well-written, well-directed, and possesses a cast that is excellent working at the top of their game. Indeed, it's difficult in some ways to get into Boogie Nights at first because of Mark Wahlberg's acting. Wahlberg as Eddie Adams is playing a young man, barely legal as it were. Wahlberg's genius in his performance is he plays Adams as a kid; he's immature, awkward and he gets into fights with his mother and runs away from home. Wahlberg's performance is wonderfully childlike and it informs the viewer to the spoiled diva Diggler will become. It's unlike anything else Wahlberg has performed in and he does a masterful job of it.

Some of my favorite actors in the film - William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Philip Baker Hall, and Melora Walters - get the short end of the stick as it were as they play supporting cast members. Even Don Cheadle is relegated to a support role that gives him almost no scenes to dominate as his own. Heather Graham is good as Rollergirl and part of her strength, like that of Wahlberg, comes from being able to portray young with a certain level of naivete.

Julianne Moore, who plays Amber Waves, reaffirms her true greatness as an actress, though I'm not sure she does anything new in her role other than appear naked. What I mean by that is simple; Moore is a truly great and versatile actress and she instantly brings a caliber and credibility to the production that some of the other actors - like Wahlberg at the time and Graham - cannot. She lives up to all of the expectations placed upon her as a great actress, wonderfully conveying emotions using her eyes and body language. Indeed, one of her most expressive moments is during her sex scene with Mark Wahlberg when the camera focuses on her eyes and they tell the viewer exactly what her character is thinking and feeling.

The cast is rounded out by Burt Reynolds as Jack Horner. Reynolds's new look as debonair middle aged gentleman was pretty much developed by his appearance in Boogie Nights. The immaculately trimmed beard, the use of the laugh lines and piercing eyes as opposed to attempting to make him look younger seem to stem from his portrayal of Horner and it's a great look for the mature actor. Reynolds brings a confidence to the screen that makes almost all of his scenes have a strange dignity to them. Reynolds plays Horner as a professional and a father-figure to the assembly and he has a leadership quality to him that works to make the piece seem bigger than life.

And Boogie Nights is a big film. It is ambitious and surprisingly smart and its only real flaw is that it feels long in a number of places. This is ironic considering Magnolia was longer, but does not feel it. This is not a film for the feint of heart; it is long, gruesome and watching the characters plunge from the top of the world to hitting their rock bottoms is depressing and difficult.

It takes a writer-director like P.T. Anderson to make the viewer care that much and execute it with that much panache!

For other films featuring Mark Wahlberg, please check out my reviews of:
The Other Guys
Date Night
Max Payne
The Departed
Four Brothers
Three Kings

7.5/10

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

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

P.T. Anderson Creates a Dramatic Opus Using . . . Adam Sandler?! He Does With Punch-Drunk Love!

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing characters, Decent plot, Directoral style
The Bad: Difficult to watch for its disturbing characterization and awkwardness
The Basics: In P.T. Anderson's disturbed character study, Punch-Drunk Love, Barry Egan's constant betrayal by those around him is finally tempered by the love of a beautiful woman.


P.T. Anderson, the writer/director genius behind such films as Boogie Nights and the vastly superior Magnolia took a little bit of time off after the ordeal of making his perfect film. When he returned, it shocked many of his fans when he announced that he would be directing a movie with Adam Sandler as the lead. Some of us groaned, but the rest decided to trust Anderson; he had earned the trust with his library before this movie. Punch-Drunk Love defies every expectation one might have for an Adam Sandler movie.

Barry Egan is a small business owner of a gag prop company in California who lives a secluded life, pressured by his eight sisters. One morning, he is waiting at work when a bizarre accident occurs, depositing a harmonium in his life. That same morning, he meets Lena, a shy woman who seems strangely attracted to him. Following a torturous night for Barry where he is forced to deal with his overbearing sisters who malign him, Barry calls a telephone sex line. When the woman he talked to the night before extorts him for money and he resists, Barry is mugged and decides to follow Lena to Hawaii. As they fall in love, Barry works to trust Lena and overcome the obstacles put in his way by the villainous Dean.

The reason Punch-Drunk Love is so successful as a film is that it is not an Adam Sandler film. Let's dispense with that rumor right off the bat. This is a P.T. Anderson film, not an Adam Sandler flick. As a result, one has to dispense with certain preconceptions going into it. The first is that the movie is going to be stupid. This film is just as highbrow and thought-provoking as any of P.T. Anderson's other works. The other thing that a lot of people have trouble with is accepting that Adam Sandler is the star of this film, yet it is not funny.

The problem I ran into with seeing Punch-Drunk Love with an audience was that the mentality of the audience was "this is an Adam Sandler movie, therefore, it must be funny" view. This is especially disturbing when Barry is being tormented and chased by hoodlums; to be in a crowd of people laughing. Anderson has adeptly created a piece that utilizes Sandler in a highly dramatic role and the unfortunate thing is that too many of Sandler's supposed "fans" do not take him seriously in this endeavor. It's disappointing because here he is proving he has what it takes to actually ACT!

That is not to say the film is without humor. It is very funny in points, most notably Egan's attempts to explain how he is scamming Healthy Choice for free airline miles. It's a brilliant scheme and between Hard Eight and Punch-Drunk Love, one gets the feeling that P.T. Anderson must be quite the swindler for all the scams he illustrates in his films. The movie has moments of lightheartedness and uses Luiz Guzman as a great straightman to Sandler's heavy. There is humor.

But it's not a funny movie. It's not a comedy. Essentially, Punch-Drunk Love revolves around a character who is deeply scarred by the constant betrayals in his life. He confides in various people, all of whom betray his confidence in one form or another leading him to lie almost compulsively. Because he never receives the trust he needs from another person, Egan naturally makes it so he cannot be trusted, flat out lying about his past and his temper. Egan lashes out at a world that is constantly betraying him. From sisters who taunt him, to a brother-in-law who he tries to get help from to the phone sex woman who tries to take his money, Barry Egan is a man constantly betrayed. He becomes very empathetic and his emotional outbursts become understandable and sad. But not funny. Perhaps the laughter of the audience was from discomfort. It is uncomfortable to see such an awkward character attempting to make it through all of his obstacles.

Lena, then, becomes Egan's moral compass, someone who allows him to begin to normalize. Through his unbetrayed ability to trust Lena, Barry begins to love and, as he says, that makes him powerful. Ultimately, it's a triumphant film; it just takes a LOT of uncomfortable, heartwrenching incidents to get him there.

Adam Sandler does an amazing job at playing Barry Egan. He creates a character distinctly different from all other Sandler characters he has heretofore played. Egan is likable, somewhat intelligent, but ultimately deeply scarred emotionally. Sandler is sure to keep him multifaceted, never allowing himself to degenerate into a parody of the anger Egan expresses. It's quite an accomplishment for Sandler.

Emily Watson plays off Sandler brilliantly. Her muted smile and quiet voice create the perfect, shy counterpart for Egan. Moreover, Watson is utterly disarming to the point of being shocking when she is finally able to reveal how similar Lena is to Barry. Watson creates an unlikely screen chemistry with Sandler as well, making Punch-Drunk Love a very visually easy movie to watch.

Ultimately, much of the credit for Punch-Drunk Love must go to writer-director P.T. Anderson. Anderson once again illustrates a strong - if depressing - understanding of human nature. He manages to create a strange blend of visual images, soft music and quirky characters resulting in a movie like no other. His command of dialog is superb and his execution of this weird love story illustrates that he has the ability to do something that is emotionally epic, without being exceptionally long in presenting it. Here, Anderson packs a maximum of emotional resonance into a discrete package.

Punch-Drunk Love is not an easy movie to watch. The protagonist is tormented and teetering on the very edge of insane rage. The nice thing about the film is this is the story of what pulls him back to the socially-acceptable norm. And the answer is love. That's pretty refreshing, even if you're stuck in an audience that can only think to laugh at it.

For other movies with Philip Seymour Hoffman, please visit my reviews of:
Moneyball
The Ides Of March
The Invention Of Lying
Charlie Wilson’s War
Mission: Impossible III
Capote
Strangers With Candy
The 25th Hour
State And Main

9/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Film Review Index Page for a list of movies I have reviewed organized by title!

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Wishy-Washy Future Is Nothing To Report Home About: Minority Report

The Good: Interesting concept, Interesting characters
The Bad: Direction, some acting, Thematically repetitive
The Basics: Steven Spielberg directs Tom Cruise in a middling film about a future where crimes are prevented by foreseeing them and stopping them before they happen.


Somewhere along the line, I began to associate Philip K. Dick with L. Ron Hubbard. Both science fiction writers seem to lend their work to big movies with lots of people running around in a world that looks nothing like what anyone would currently guess the future would look like now. As a simple example, in Minority Report (which was based on one of Dick's short stories), there is a sweeping, huge highway system throughout Washington, D.C. that would never have the funding to be built by today's Highway Departments.

Minority Report is set in the near future where crime in Washington, D.C. has been eliminated through the use of psychics and an advanced system wherein police arrest criminals before they commit murder. The head of the Precrime Division is John Anderton, a deeply scarred, drug addicted police officer who is very good at his job. He has effectively eliminated murder in Washington, D.C. and his system seems to be flawless. However, as Precrime prepares to go national, Anderton finds the office under investigation by a Justice Department investigator named Witwer. When the Precognitives (the psychics in charge of sensing the future murders) foresee Anderton committing a murder, Anderton starts to run, believing Witwer has set him up.

This little opus by Steven Spielberg is an unfortunate example of where special effects films go wrong today. In the pursuit of being bigger, faster and more, the directors somehow manage to forget "better." As a result, Minority Report is a chase film filled with quick shot images, fast camera moves and other jerky visual elements that keep the viewer off their toes and missing much of the rather large world being created to tell the story in. Thus, the first viewing of the film may inspire a headache or at the least bafflement as so much happens on the screen so fast it's near impossible to catch it all the first time. This is especially disappointing considering what an accomplished director Spielberg is; one might think he would like people to see the canvas he is painting on, but instead this piece substitutes creative endeavor with flash.

While the characters are interesting, some of the problem with the film comes down to the actors. Colin Farrell plays Witwer, the Justice Department investigator who is hunting Anderton. While Anderton tries to exonerate himself, Witwer gains access to all the same data. Farrell fails to portray Witwer in a menacing enough manner that the viewer actually believes he is the villain setting everything up. As a result, it's hard to buy any of Farrell's scenes, save his final one.

Similarly, Tom Cruise, who plays Anderton does nothing to differentiate this role from his Mission: Impossible persona. All he does is run, jump and defend himself. Cruise brings nothing to this role that is not in the script, not in the short story. He's become, in this context, something of a generic action hero and in Minority Report, the viewer wants something more.

In contrast, Anderton is an interesting character. He is fleshed out well with his backstory; he joined the Precrime program in its infancy when his son was kidnaped. He has some complicated relationships, with his estranged wife and the head of the Precrime Division, Burgess. The character's desperate attempts to prove himself make the film watchable.

Ultimately, the problem with Minority Report is that it wants to be a temporal thriller while being an engaging chase film. When certain fundamental principles are put into place, the film loses its edge. For example, the Precognitives predict that Anderton will commit a PREMEDITATED murder of a man he doesn't know. Given that fact and the supposed infallibility of the Precognitives, it is no surprise when the could-be climactic scene arrives. As well, the theme of predestination versus free will becomes rapidly and excessively beaten into the viewer.

In the end, that was what pushed me over into the "not recommend" camp; Minority Report is an average film that tries to be new, different and cutting edge and instead ends up beating the viewer over the head with some rather elementary concepts, making it visually difficult to watch and auditorily failing to stimulate enough to keep the viewer engaged. If you want fair science fiction where everything is handed to you, this is a fine film. I, however, know you can do better.

For other movies featuring Colin Farrell, check out my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Daredevil

4.5/10

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

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

Love And Redemption And Cinematic Perfection: Magnolia Is Incredible!

The Good: Characters, Dialogue, Plot, Acting, "Look."
The Bad: None.
The Basics: Without exaggeration, Magnolia is a perfect film. A masterpiece of American storytelling, acting and directing with wonderful characters weaving an intricate tapestry.


"And the book says we may be through with the past, but the past is not through with us. And no, it is not dangerous to confuse children with angels!" So speaks the middle aged Donnie Smith, played by William H. Macy near the middle of the film Magnolia. That line epitomizes the level of thought ongoing in the film as all of its characters search for love and/or redemption.

Magnolia reviews have often been criticized for being pretentious, often stated as "as pretentious as the film itself." However, while some of the reviews do attempt to be overly dignified and important (or self-important), the film is truly excellent. In all implications of the word. It is containing an emotional and psychological depth often lacking in film today, it utilizes dialogue a caliber that is rare inside the dumbed-down popular culture too often prevailed upon in the U.S. and it is big and long. In a word: adult. This is an adult movie. It's not pandering to children, it's not pandering to teenagers ages 14 - 21, it's a movie with breadth and depth written by an adult, for an adult audience. Allow me to explain why.

First of all, the duration of the film is geared toward adults. At 191 minutes, three hours, eleven minutes for those of you doing the math, it's a long film. To watch the movie takes some degree of patience. "Patience?! The film can't be engrossing if it requires patience!" Au contraire, while the film requires the ability to remain stationary for three hours, it is very engaging. I've seen the film twice now and not once during it have I looked at a clock. It is that easy to lose oneself in it. If anything, I'm upset by the length only in that it requires two tapes. Ideally, I'd like to see the film without having to get up and change tapes. The reason the length is not at all a "con" is because it's all necessary. The film The Road Home, for example, is filled with simple conflicts that are easily resolved. Add to that that that film attempts to illustrate such things as waiting by showing the young woman waiting for her lover actually waiting. For extended periods of time, nothing happens because she's actually waiting. How does this relate to Magnolia? Several scenes in The Road Home could have been cut, not true with Magnolia. The sheer number of characters and plots make everything that appears in the film necessary. There aren't whole scenes or ideas that could be eliminated or trimmed in this film. Quite simply, the length of the film is indicative of the themes it explores. It's an adult movie, it's an adult length.

A huge reason the length is appropriate is the themes the movie portrays. The resounding themes of the movie are love and redemption. All of the primary characters in the film are either attempting to find or express love or are in a search for redemption. Some are involved with both themes. But this is not a juvenile exploration of either emotion or desire. The film deals with love with sensibilities and sensitivities of an adult. The need to be forgiven is powerful throughout the movie and it is written with appropriate passion and force. These are compelling ideas, aspects of human nature, that adults wrestle with. Magnolia is about adults wrestling with adult problems and themes.

So, what is Magnolia and how to write a review about it without sounding pretentious? The film as a mosaic of intertwining people's lives. That is the best description of the film: it is a larger work consisting of smaller, often unrelated elements. If you look at the pieces of the film, you'll see individual stories and characters, if you look at the film as a whole, you'll see overriding themes and ideas. I'd liken it a little more to a tapestry; the threads of a tapestry weave together and while it's possible to appreciate the various threads, the overall image is more pronounced. The difference between a tapestry and mosaic is subtle; with a mosaic, there's often less interaction between the component parts, whereas threads of different colors in a tapestry weave and wind through the larger work in more analogous ways. That is, one character or plot will appear suddenly in the film and another character or plot may disappear for quite some time.

So, what is Magnolia about? Due to the character-driven nature of the film, it's impossible to discuss the plot without focusing on the characters. The movie is about characters, about people, feeling and doing things. And the principles are:

Jim Kurring, a seemingly-together beat cop who plays by the rules and lives a principled, often humble, life is going about his life looking for love. In the course of the film and following a good arrest in a pretty heinous crime, he discovers Claudia.

Claudia is an often-inarticulate coke junkie who is recovering from her past (thought that quote at the beginning was irrelevant, did ya?! Shame on you!) and looking for love and seeking redemption from her past and present indiscretions. Claudia and Jim are often the heart and soul of the film, though it's near impossible to say that as they both have the screen perhaps a third of the movie. But their relationship is beautiful, realistic, and more than anything, adult.

Claudia's father is Jimmy Gator, aged game show host of the long-running "What Do Kids Know?" Jimmy is dying of cancer and in the course of the movie confesses all his indiscretions to his wife and appears before his daughter desiring nothing more than complete redemption for his crimes against her. Jimmy is lost and his inability to resolve himself to even being honest to the full truth of all he's done cripples him. He's a complex character seeking a complex absolution.

Perhaps the best foil for Jimmy is the child Stanley. Stanley is a child prodigy appearing on "What Do Kids Know?" As Jimmy degrades, Stanley, under enormous pressure to perform (as he is about to break a longevity record on the gameshow) from his father, his teammates, the producers of the show, begins to become actualized. He steps out of his childhood (which his intelligence has already forced him out of) and asserts his desires. One of the film's last lines is his and it articulates the most important desires of any human who has ever been an underdog, anyone who has wanted respect. Stanley is seeking love and acceptance for the person he is, not just the potential he represents.

On the same side of the spectrum is Donnie Smith, former champion on "What Do Kids Know?" It is his record Stanley is two days away from breaking and it's clear Donnie never had the actualization Stanley is seen achieving. Instead, Donnie, at the end of his celebrity, laments the losses of his life as he tries, more than anything else, to attempt to articulate his loves. His heart is a big one, his sense of damage deep, and as he tries to manipulate circumstances throughout the film to make his love possible, he expresses a vast range of emotions.

For every bit Donnie loves, Earl Partridge seeks redemption. Earl, aged and also dying of cancer (the fact that there are two people in the film dying of cancer seems to bother many reviewers; I'm not sure why. There are many people dying of cancer, especially in the 60+ range. These things truly happen!), is seeking forgiveness from his son. Through the course of the movie, the reasons for that desire become clear, but it is one of the bigger surprises of the film, so I'm not going to ruin it. Actually, this is a good time to say this: all of the driving forces behind the characters, complex as they are, come out. This film masterfully weaves so many of their motivations together, making them explicit and real. Earl wants deathbed redemption and his reasoning is compelling.

Around Earl are two very important and engaging characters. The first is Linda Partridge, Earl's significantly younger wife. Linda is a nexus of love and redemption. As one might guess seeing such a young woman with such an old man, her marriage to Earl was more than for love. The problem Linda has is that as Earl has moved closer to death, she has actually fallen in love with Earl and she feels tremendous remorse for the horrible things she's done, for her betrayals of Earl's love. There's a sense of poetic justice in the relationship Linda and Earl have.

The final primary character, and the second intertwined with Earl is Frank T.J. Mackey. He is a misogynistic, angry man, filled with hate and dogma. He's like the reactionary anti-christ motivational speaker. He conducts workshops on empowering men to be Men (read: men to be dogs). His "Seduce and Destroy" philosophy resonates through the film and it becomes clear early on that this is a scarred individual who is filled with hate. When news reaches him that Earl is dying, his becomes a most compelling exploration of how and why to give redemption and the magnitude of love, even for those who have done horrible wrongs to us.

The only character heretofore unmentioned is Earl's nurse, Phil. Phil is played expertly by Philip Seymour Hoffman and he serves as an excellent place to continue the analysis of Magnolia. Hoffman delivers a heartfelt performance as the nurse, carrying through the stages of Earl's degradation with stark realism, blind optimism and an impressive array of facial expressions. Juliane Moore and Melora Walters amazingly play Linda and Claudia. Their performances are sharp, expertly delivered in dialogue and simple strength of their portrayals. Jason Robards and Jeremy Blackman are expert actors fleshing out the dying Earl and the boy on the brink Stanley. Their acting is wonderful. The film is filled with wonderful actors acting wonderfully.

The best acting comes from three men, which is actually a semi-surprise to me. William H. Macy, who I've come to expect great performances from, adds so much depth and greatness to Donnie. He doesn't fail to deliver in Magnolia; if anything, he makes me raise his bar for his work even higher. He's that great. As good is John C. Reilly as Officer Jim. His performance is nothing short of incredible. He plays the part with such simplicity and presence that, when viewing the film, it's hard to take one's eyes off him. He's very real. He's needy and lovable and his words are poetic and portrayed with such stark realism and near-clumsiness that it's easy to miss how on-the-nose his dialogue truly is. The triumvirate is completed by Tom Cruise. Usually a clumsy, stylish, pretty face/bad actor, Frank is the role Cruise was born to play. If nothing else, it proves Cruise can act. The characters is slick, disgusting and loathsome and Cruise plays him expertly. He deserved every nomination and award he received for this role. He was that good. I never thought I'd ever say that about Tom Cruise, but this is the film to see him in.

On DVD, Magnolia comes with a featurette, a video diary of its production, which is enlightening. There is not a commentary track, but the behind-the-scenes featurettes are entertaining and educational. The bonus disc also contains closer looks at background components of the primary film.

Magnolia, in final analysis, is beautiful to watch. It's wonderfully shot, expertly put together, visually impressive. The soundtrack is integral and it works well. In short, this is a perfect film. It is an adult film and it deserves the attention of adults who have compassion, thought and emotions. This is the film adults have been waiting for. It captures our imagination and deals with real, adult problems and solutions, thoughts and emotions.

For other incredible dramas, please check out my reviews of:
Inception
Watchmen
The Social Network

10/10

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

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