Working When It Commits To Its Adult Themes, Who Framed Roger Rabbit Delivers!

The Good: Acting, Animation, Adult plot developments and character motivations
The Bad: Child-oriented jokes and cop-outs, Simplistic moments
The Basics: Attempting to straddle the child and adult themes, Who Framed Roger Rabbit works when it commits to the complexities and might well be the peak of Bob Hoskins’s performances.


As 2015 begins, I find myself catching up with a few things I did not quite get to in 2014. At the top of my list, was writing something in tribute to Bob Hoskins. Hoskins died in April of 2014 and right around the time I found myself with enough time to watch new (to me) movies and write a tribute, Robin Williams died. But, with the possibility of a sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit hitting theaters in 2015, I figured that I could start out my new movie reviews of 2015 by rewatching and reviewing Who Framed Roger Rabbit. In fact, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is an exceptional example of the talent Bob Hoskins possessed; given that much of his performance in Who Framed Roger Rabbit forced him to interact with virtual characters (in a time when film was still the medium) and that Hoskins nailed the performance, he was undeniably a genuine talent.

Until tonight, I had not seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit since it aired in theaters. I recall seeing the movie as a child on the big screen, but I never bothered to rewatch it until now. Outside a few blown eyelines, the live-action and animated film holds up remarkably well on the acting front. Occupying a weird niche between noir detective film and a parody of the same, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is, at the very least, a fun flick.

In Hollywood, 1947, Roger Rabbit is the co-star of Baby Herman cartoons, but he keeps blowing his lines. Eddie Valiant is a down-on-his-luck private detective who is called to Maroon Cartoons’ offices by the studio’s owner where he is hired to find out if Roger’s wife, Jessica, is stepping out on him. After paying down his bar tab with half the payment he gets from Maroon, Valiant reluctantly enters the toon underbelly of Los Angeles (reluctant because a toon killed his brother by dropping a piano on him). Valiant follows Jessica Rabbit from the club at which she works to a rendezvous where Marvin Acme . . . where they play pattycake (literally). After taking photographs of the two together, Valiant delivers the evidence to Maroon and Roger Rabbit freaks out. The next morning, Acme is found murdered and Roger Rabbit is the prime suspect.

But a trip to the scene of the crime near Toon Town puts Valiant in contact with the menacing Judge Doom. Judge Doom kills an animated shoe in front of Valiant and soon Baby Herman provides Valiant with a motive for Acme’s murder. Apparently, Acme was going to leave Toon Town to the toons and when Valiant sees that the will which would have turned over the town to the toon actually existed, he finds himself mired in the case. Teaming up with Roger Rabbit, Valiant works to exonerate the rabbit, find the will and stop Judge Doom from unleashing his genocidal Dip on Toon Town!

Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a fun noir-ish film that is based upon a novel, which to be honest, I have not read. But many of the best moments in Who Framed Roger Rabbit have a very literary sense of spark to them. And, like many ‘80s films that are oft-quoted, Who Framed Roger Rabbit has some startlingly memorable lines.

What is perhaps most surprising about Who Framed Roger Rabbit is that it is actually a fairly adult film, mistaken for a kid’s movie because of the film’s unreal characters. Despite having some ridiculous jokes involving competing animated characters (Disney and Warner Bros. characters openly compete in little subplots and side-scenes throughout the film), Who Framed Roger Rabbit has a plot that is given surprisingly adult concepts and motivations. Judge Doom rose to power by buying an election and the conspiracy surrounding the missing will has to do with competing bids and real estate transactions that will go way over the heads of children.

In addition to having character motivations that are not simplistic and a surprisingly dark climax that is fairly terrifying, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is the gold standard for actors who want to work with virtual characters. In addition to Bob Hoskins, Christopher Lloyd is impressive as Judge Doom. While Judge Doom is something of a monolithic evil character, Lloyd brings a quiet menace to the role that is unsettling to watch. His interactions with characters like Roger Rabbit when Roger is vibrating manically are wonderful to watch; he and Hoskins sell the weird reality of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Unfortunately, the failure of the film to commit to its more adult themes robs it of perfection. But perfect or not, Bob Hoskins is amazing as he talks to Roger Rabbit with all the emotion and nuance, as if the animated character was actually sitting beside him. Combined with all the jokes and serious moments that actually make for a deep story, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is worth rewatching . . . even if it takes a couple of decades to get around to it!

For other works with Bob Hoskins, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Snow White And The Huntsman
A Christmas Carol
Doomsday
Stay
Hook
Brazil

7.5/10

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.
| | |

A Tight Drama That Resonates On Several Levels, Flight Has Internal And External Conflicts That Work!

The Good: Acting, Dramatic tension, Interesting characters, Good conflict, Decent plot
The Bad: Cliches (romantic subplot), Moments of belaboring its own point.
The Basics: Flight lives up to the hype of a typical Denzel Washington drama film, this time focusing on an alcohol and drug-addicted pilot whose life it changed when he crashes a plane.


As Oscar Pandering Season reaches its zenith this year, the selections are getting a bit obvious. While I loved Argo, a political story that allowed Ben Affleck to make a directoral and acting grab for the big trophies was more obvious than audacious in many ways. In a similar way, Flight is working very hard to fill a niche in Oscar Pandering Season that has been successful in the past, most notably with Million Dollar Baby (reviewed here!). Like Million Dollar Baby, Flight starts as one type of film and then turns into another type of film altogether as it progresses. Actually, Flight is not that abrupt, as the key elements are juggled throughout. There are, however, stretches of the film where it seems uncertain if it wants to be a gripping character study about an addict or a crime drama.

Regardless, director Robert Zemeckis is making Oscarbait with Flight and it seems like it hits all the key elements needed to get the nominations it seeks for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Denzel Washington). And while I enjoyed it and can think of at least four other films vying for the same nominations that Flight is better than, as the film wound down, I found myself thinking about how the movie lacked a spark of greatness. With the movies I hope might win the big Oscars, I always find myself wanting to watch them more than once (even Crash, reviewed here!). With Flight, I had the feeling when it was over that made me shrug and say “Once was enough.”

Whip Whitaker is a boozer, a coke addict, and a guy who hooks up with whatever woman is most convenient, dependent upon his location. Whitaker is also a pilot and during a flight complicated by weather and turbulence, he makes a daring series of maneuvers and adjustments to save the bulk of the passengers. While the more than ninety survivors of the flight are glad to be alive, the families of the dead quickly look to assign blame. In the hospital in Georgia, Whitaker is visited by elements from both sides; the Union (represented by his friend Charlie) and investigators from the National Traffic Safety Board.

As the investigation proceeds and Whitaker’s defense attorney works to suppress the toxicology evidence that would spell the end of Whitaker’s career, he meets Nicole. Nicole is an addict who is working on getting clean and against their better judgments – especially considering Whitaker is still being visited by his dealer, Harling – they begin to bond. With Whitaker fighting his own inner demons, he and Hugh fight to keep his life as a pilot from falling apart as the investigators dig deeper.

Flight manages to be entertaining in telling the viewer what they have already seen. The crash – which I would have argued should have been kept out of the trailers for maximum impact in the film itself – is experienced and seen by the viewers, yet the forensic detailing of it afterward is presented in a way that manages to be entertaining. In fact, the scenes that could have been dry exposition work hard on the screen to reinforce that the event viewers witnessed was miraculous in many ways. Part of the power of the middle and latter sections of the film come from the technical descriptions and the understanding that the results were atypical. No matter what one’s personal feelings are on addictions, it is virtually impossible to watch the breakdown of the chain of events and not be impressed that Whip Whitaker’s actions manages to save almost everyone aboard the plane.

The fundamental question Flight has to wrestle with, then, is whether or not Whitaker’s actions leading up to flying high (no way around that phrase in this review!) in advance of the initial conditions attributed to the crash contributed to the crash. In other words, would the plane still have encountered the same circumstances from which Whitaker was forced to rescue the plane were it not for him being drunk and on coke at the time? Fortunately, the film belabors the events as they happened and exactly what it means on a personal and professional level. Professionally, it is hard to deny the fact that Whitaker is an ace pilot, reinforced by the simulations that other pilots faced with the same conditions crashed during.

But the personal implications of Flight make for more compelling questions. If Whitaker is such an amazing pilot, does it actually matter that he was drunk at the time of the accident? If Whitaker’s piloting was an element in a divine scheme that cost six people their lives, what does it mean for him to get sober (or not) in its aftermath? Flight satisfactorily presents a sense of that conflict and turmoil.

At the same time, Flight muddies its essential conflict with the superfluous romantic relationship between Whitaker and Nicole in a particularly trite plotline that anyone familiar with treatment knows is against every major therapy style. Whip Whitaker is a pretty classic anti-hero, while Nicole grounds Flight with a greater sense of realism. She is an addict, constantly struggling, outside the limelight and truly with only herself to bear the strain. The sudden celebrity and notoriety Whitaker achieves allows him the chance to avoid some of his own emotional consequences, but makes for a sufficiently complicated character study.

Denzel Washington is obvious, but impressive, as Whip Whitaker. Plausible as a pilot and an addict, Washington brings the character to life, making him seem like much more than just a character type. Washington is balanced well by Don Cheadle (Hugh) and Bruce Greenwood (Charlie) who all have the same level of gravitas in their roles, making the “universe” of Flight seem completely plausible. John Goodman is fun as Harling Mays, but like Kelly Reilly’s Nicole, he seems out of place in Flight.

Even so, Flight manages to live up to the hype surrounding it as an engaging, (mostly) character-driven drama that succeeds in being a contender for this year’s Oscar race.

For other works with Denzel Washington, please check out my reviews of:
Safe House
The Book Of Eil
The Taking Of Pelham 3 2 1
The Siege
Philadelphia

7.5/10

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.
| | |

The Conventions Of Horror Revealed In What Lies Beneath!

The Good: Moments of genuine suspense, Special effects
The Bad: Michelle Pfeiffer's acting, Ford's character, Utter predictability, Length, Pacing
The Basics: Using all of the most common and overused elements of a horror film, What Lies Beneath fails to capture the attention and imagination of the viewer.


[Note: This is a retro review! Originally printed in 2002 when I started writing reviews online, I liked my original opening and when I reread, it reminded me of something I had forgotten. Wow, those crabs died quick! Anyway, I liked the idea of that memory not being lost, so I have retained all of the original review. Enjoy!]

Last night, I did two things of lasting import: I bought a pair of crabs for my aquarium and I got a couple of movies out of the local library. One of those two films was What Lies Beneath. So, I put the fiddler crabs into the fish tank and I popped the movie in. I ought to have stuck with the crabs.

What Lies Beneath tells the tale of Claire Spencer, a housewife in Maine who is married to the overachieving Norman Spencer. Claire is feeling anxiety over her daughter leaving home and neglect from her husband working on an important thesis. She becomes anxious to the point that she believes the new neighbors are having troubles that have resulted in the husband next door killing his wife. The first hour of the film deals with a psychological breakdown that focuses on Claire and hallucinations she is having. She also seems to cut herself on everything possible in her environment. So, Claire has a little episode that ends with the revelation that the neighbor next door is alive and well. But the creepy occurrences that had been plaguing Claire before the truth was revealed continue as Claire researches a missing girl who matches one of her hallucinations. From then, the film becomes an interweaving of the missing girl, Claire's supernatural possession and an affair that Norman had a year ago.

The problem with What Lies Beneath is it's an obvious film. It is utterly obvious, following all of the conventions of a horror/suspense film. The doors open on their own, the windows open, Claire cuts herself. We know when Claire finds the bathtub full of water, she's going to see something in it, something that is designed to scare us. In fact, the only way one might be frightened by this film is if they've never once seen a horror flick. So common are the techniques used in What Lies Beneath that when the person I was watching the movie with began to become afraid, to alleviate the fear, I called the next few moments of the film. I was 97.5% right (I was wrong about a mast near the end of the film). It's all here as you would expect: the disappearing body, the sneak up behind, the person waiting behind the open refrigerator door. Plus, it's a horror film with a guy named Norman, so what do you think?

But more than that, the obviousness sucks away all enjoyment for anyone even remotely awake. That the word "Lies" fades in first and last in the opening title accents what we ought to have reasoned rather quickly: someone is lying. That obviousness continues, though, in all aspects of the film. This overuses the old adage, "If a gun is introduced in the first act, by the final curtain it must go off." In this film, you have keys and neurotoxins appear prominently and without obvious cause early in the film, then are deployed at times that we see coming a million miles away later on. And some of it is just plain idiotic. When the key is finally used is just plain insulting to anyone who has ever gone swimming.

Also problematic is the acting. First, Harrison Ford is given top billing when Michelle Pfeiffer deserves it. Most of the movie is Claire's story and she deserved the first billing on that alone. And it is that alone, because Pfeiffer's acting here is decidedly below par. I've been known to appreciate Michelle Pfeiffer's acting abilities, but here she is completely wasted. Pfeiffer's talents are being used to put Ally McBeal in a horror film. What I mean by that is that Pfeiffer's Claire Spencer is acted as if Spencer was Ally McBeal. It's like people around David E. Kelley can only conceive of one type of crazy woman. Go figure. But it is distracting and it is a serious detraction to taking this film seriously.

Harrison Ford never seems to hit his stride as Norman, either. There are moments (right now I'm thinking of a conversation Norman has with the dog in the final bathtub scene) where Ford seems to be playing Han Solo or Indiana Jones again. There are charming moments where he appears to be playing his character from Sabrina again. In short, he never defines Norman Spencer as a unique, original entity. He seems to be calling on his other (better) roles for this one.

In fact, the only real reason to bother with this flick is the first hour. In that first hour, some of the psychological questions about Claire Spencer's character are actually compelling enough to keep us guessing. But once things begin to get explained, well, it's all over then. This film was supposed to be terrifying, but I was calling shots early on and it had such a lack of an impression on me that I went and took a bath after it, then went to bed untroubled.

Well, not entirely untroubled. I was bothered that I had sat so long through such an obvious, poorly constructed film. That was time I could have been watching my new crabs.

For other films directed by Robert Zemeckis, please check out my reviews of:
A Christmas Carol
Forrest Gump
The Back To The Future Trilogy

3/10

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

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

| | |

Doc Brown Gets His Story In Back To The Future, Part III.

The Good: Good acting, Good character development (finally!), Decent enough concept
The Bad: Terrible, repetitive plot, Simple resolution.
The Basics: When Marty McFly returns to the Old West to rescue his friend Doc Brown from certain death, the audience has a nice twist on the Western and a decent ride.


First off, Back To The Future, Part III is almost entirely dependent on seeing Back To The Future (reviewed here!) or, at the very least, Back To The Future, Part II (reviewed here!). It is the last act, it feels like that and it utilizes the conceits and concepts of the first two films on the assumption that the viewer knows and understands them. So, unlike other trilogies that might have perfectly standalone final episodes, this is not one of them. This is not like Revenge of the Sith (reviewed here!) that a viewer could sit down and watch and be missing nothing because the movie is so well-contained. No, this is very much a final act. It is all about wrapping up loose ends and finishing the story. Where the first film was a science fiction comedy, the second a hard science fiction (at best a science fiction drama), the third act is a science fiction western. As with my review of Back To The Future, Part II, this review is for this film as a standalone film. To see how it works as part of the trilogy, see the link at the bottom.

Stranded in 1955 when the time machine Marty McFly was dependent upon for returning to his life in 1985 is inexplicably wrenched back in time, Marty returns to the 1955 version of Dr. Emmett Brown. Fortunately, Doc Brown was thrown into the past when the Delorean time machine disappeared. Knowing when and where to find Marty, Doc wrote him a letter from 1885, giving him the location of the time machine, the directions for repairing it with 1955 technology and the admonishment to not come looking for him in the past.

While 1955 Doc and Marty fix the time machine, Doc Brown looks up records of his past self and discovers that a week after writing the letter to Marty, he was killed by the gunman Mad Dog Tannen. Wishing to honor his own wishes, but feeling that he died in vain, Brown allows Marty to return to 1995 to rescue Doc Brown and return to 1985. Marty makes it back to 1885, but there are complications and he and Doc Brown must overcome the technological limitations to get the time machine to work while avoiding a gunslinger out to kill Doc and now Marty, who is going by the name Clint Eastwood.

Unlike the relationship between Back To The Future and Back To The Future, Part II, Back To The Future, Part III feels like it is in the same spirit, style and flow as Back To The Future, Part II. On the simple production level, this makes perfect sense as the writers and director constructed the two movies together and filmed them back to back. This eliminates problems with recasting and made the movie easier to construct with a sense of continuity.

In short, Back To The Future, Part III eats up the crumbs dropped in Part II. The problem here is that, this is a review of Back To The Future, Part III as a standalone movie. Ignoring the prior two outings, the question becomes, what does this movie do to make itself worthwhile?

The reason Back To The Future, Part III works as a standalone film is that it wisely mortgages Marty McFly and focuses on Dr. Emmett Brown. Doc Brown finds living in 1885 to be a treat, a chance to overcome all of the pressures and obstacles that plagued him through his unsuccessful career and enjoy himself. He allows himself to open up to love, he takes joy in a simpler life and he lets himself be happy without the pressure to succeed at anything. This character twist makes him vital, interesting and engaging.

Marty, then, becomes his sidekick for a change (the role was essentially reversed in the previous outings). Marty becomes Doc's bodyguard and when Mad Dog Tannen turns his attentions from Doc to Marty, the movie is somewhat shaky. Marty grows from being easily baited to developing some sense of judgment. This is a refreshing character change.

And the simple, obvious relationship between Doc Brown and schoolteacher Clara Clayton is Hollywood, predictable and yet still enjoyable to watch. Because of how obvious it is, one would suspect that it has no value. However, seeing Doc Brown as serious and joyless in 1955, it's wonderful to see him alive and human in 1885. The contrast of the eager scientist and the pointless death revealed in 1955 make it a joy to watch Doc Brown alive and interesting, clever and engaged in 1885. In short, the viewer finds themselves rooting for Doc Brown and his obvious romance with Clara. Because the Old West environment is Doc Brown's bailiwick, Back To The Future, Part III is much more his movie.

What makes Back To The Future, Part III worthwhile, outside the characters actually learning and developing, is the acting. Thomas F. Wilson, James Tolkan, and Lea Thompson all return to provide supporting roles. Wilson's Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen is a nice addition to his roles creating the Tannens and he is a convincing enough Western villain. Tolkan's cameo and Thompson's are pleasant enough. Thompson's place is simple enough and works independent of the troubling genetic notion that Marty McFly's great grandparents might be essentially the same stock as his parents.

Mary Steenburgen joins the cast as Clara Clayton. She is a pleasant addition, though her character is a pretty generic love interest type role, with little to develop her beyond that. Steenburgen is different than other roles I've seen her in (honestly, the only thing that comes right to mind that I've seen her in is the short-lived comedy with her off-screen husband Ted Danson, Ink) completely embodying the Western woman in the affectations of the time.

Michael J. Fox continues his role as Marty McFly and here he seems a bit old to be playing an 18 year-old convincingly. Fortunately, his age is never actually disclosed in this movie, making the part a fine role because it is not dependent upon the viewer believing he is a high school student. Fox's big acting moment is when Marty has the epiphany that being baited by Buford is beneath him and that works. Otherwise, this is the same character we've seen and it's not a particularly stellar or original performance.

It is Christopher Lloyd who dominates the acting of Back To The Future, Part III. Like his role as the Klingon Captain Kruge in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock (reviewed here!), Lloyd give a performance distinctly different from those we've seen him in before. He is joyful, smiling and emotionally connected as Doc Brown in 1885. When Brown sees Marty in the past, Lloyd is able to be emotionally expressive in a way his character has not been before. The transition from befuddled character in the 1955 setting to self-assured, knowledgeable and even romantic in the latter two-thirds of the movie makes Lloyd a pleasure to watch. Moreover, for all of the problems with the writing of her character, Mary Steenburgen and Lloyd play off one another with decent on-screen chemistry.

Back To The Future, Part III also creates a theme that makes a lot of sense. It advocates standing up for oneself, but not being a simple tool that can be pushed by anyone and anything. This is an honorable position and it's well developed in the movie. Moreover, understanding it allows Marty McFly to truly grow and develop. Unfortunately, the movie still has some of the jokes from prior installments like Tannen running into manure and a skateboarding scene, but they somehow seem more new than familiar in this setting.

In the end, this is a solid enough movie to make itself worth seeing and it's simply enough to understand all on its own. It is not bogged down in recreating the prior episodes and the characters actually grow. And here the characters motivate the plot, as opposed to vice versa. Marty returns to 1885 to rescue his friend and that's noble.

To see how Back To The Future, Part III works as a part of the greater series, check out my review on Back To The Future - The Complete Series on DVD here!

For other final chapters in science fiction epics, please check out my reviews of:
Star Trek: Nemesis
Alien Resurrection
Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

4.5/10

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

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


| | |

The Greatest Hits Of Back To The Future With New Stuff In Back To The Future Part II!

The Good: Interesting plot, Decent acting, DVD extras
The Bad: Little character development, Plot drives story, Rehashes much of the first
The Basics: While the middle of Back To The Future, Part II is engaging as the story of Biff Tannen becomes huge, the movie is 2/3 average and uninspired.


I had not seen Back To The Future, Part II until this week, though I certainly knew about it when it was released. I had the novelization, watched behind the scenes specials on television (which are included on the DVD and Blu-Ray release!), and was excited about the movie, but I just never got around to seeing it. As a standalone project, Back To The Future, Part II falls down on any number of occasions because some of its work is far too dependent on Back To The Future (reviewed here!). Back To The Future, Part II is much better in the context of the trilogy (see link at the bottom), than as a standalone movie. This review is just for the middle act, for this movie as it stands on its own.

Marty McFly, his girlfriend Jennifer, and Dr. Emmett Brown take off in Doc Brown's flying Delorean car made time machine for 2015, to stop Marty and Jennifer's future children from making fatal mistakes that will ruin their lives and essentially destroy the McFly family. Marty succeeds in saving Marty Jr. from being bullied by Griff Tannen (grandson of bully-turned-browbeaten loser Biff), but in the process Doc and Marty lose Jennifer. Jennifer ends up at the residence of 2015 Marty and Jennifer, where she works to escape and reunite herself with Marty and Doc.

While Marty and Doc work to rescue Jennifer, Biff Tannen steals the time machine and returns to 1955. He gives the younger version of himself a sports almanac and instructions to bet on the winners in the book to build himself a better life. Older Biff returns to the future with the time machine before Marty and Doc know it is gone and the pair - along with the rescued Jennifer - return to 1985. Unfortunately for them, 1985 is not what they remember it to be and Biff Tannen owns Hill Valley, running it like Las Vegas with it under his heel. Brown deduces what happened, recovers Marty from the psychopathic gangster and the pair travel back to 1955 to try to fix things, without Marty undoing what he did the first time around in 1955.

Back To The Future, Part II suffers from two things: it was written and produced four to five years after the original Back To The Future and it feels like it. While the film does an adequate job of disguising recasting, with neither Crispin Glover (as George McFly) nor Claudia Wells (Jennifer) returning, though Glover appears in archive footage for a few scenes, the movie is far too plot-driven to be as interesting or respectable as the original.

Take the basic plot: Marty and Jennifer in the future are married, have children and the children are going to jail as a result of the draconian system of jurisprudence in 2015. Once that is established, the viewer has to ask, "Why is Doc Brown making this his issue?" We wonder why Doc Brown thinks going to the future to influence the events is the best idea and why Jennifer is brought along. In fact, the movie does not have an easy answer to why Jennifer is brought along, so she is dispatched pretty quickly. In short, writers Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis clearly had no idea how to fit Jennifer into the story but because of how Back To The Future was resolved, they had to include her and cut her out as quick as possible.

But while certain aspects of the plot are good ideas and interesting, the essential idea is just stupid; Doc Brown acts like there is an imminent threat to fixing the future, which is why Jennifer is brought along. He can't wait to get back to the future to fix things. But the future will still be there . . . well, in the future, so there's no good reason Doc Brown couldn't have waited until Marty was alone and taken him to fix the future . . . other than the writers were bound by their own conceits and writings.

The thing is, it feels like it was misassembled as a result. More than that, Back To The Future, Part II becomes an homage to itself when the movie returns to 1955. Key jokes and moments are revisited, with Marty from Part 2 acknowledging them. So, for example, Marty from Part 2 is crawling beside the car where Marty from Part 1 is sitting talking to his future mother, Lorraine, who says something. Marty from Part 1 makes a quip about the remark and Marty from Part 2, outside the car says something like "I still feel that way." It's self indulgent and falls terribly flat. Marty witnesses one of the climactic moments of Back To The Future from a different perspective and he does what Marty from Part 1 (standing nearby) cannot do; he gives the audience reaction from Back To The Future. To speak in less obtuse methods (that's the closest I come to saying "spoiler warning"), George McFly punches Biff Tannen, the big bully, rescuing Lorraine from being raped. When this happens in Back To The Future, the ideal audience cheers and feels some catharsis. Because Back To The Future, Part II is not invested in this storyline - we are engaged in Marty trying to recover the sports almanac from Biff - Marty Part 2 providing the reaction from part 1 just seems self referential, patting the movie on its own back and that's just insulting to the seasoned viewer. It pulls us out of this movie by, in essence, saying "If you're not liking this, remember how good the original was?"

I'm not a big fan of altering movies, at least not without offering the originals to the viewers (yea, branching technology!). In Back To The Future, Part II some of the effects are silly by today's standards, much less where the viewer anticipates them being in the future. The prime example of this is a holographic Jaws shark (for Jaws 10 or 19) in 2015. Steven Spielberg - a producer on this work - allows director Robert Zemeckis to take a poke at him with a fake-looking holographic shark advertising the new movie in 2015. Marty's response is "The shark still looks fake." This would be an actually funny line if the shark did not look like a cartoon. If it looked as close to real as possible, the joke works, as a cheap animated version of a shark, this line is just silly and self-referential as opposed to genuinely funny. The effect ought to have had a face-lift.

But mostly, Back To The Future, Part II suffers because it tells the same jokes as the first. We have Biff Tannen and Griff Tannen being run into trucks of manure, we have the cultural observations about differences in time, and we have Marty not responding well to being called a chicken. And there's a skateboarding scene or two made new with the use of a hoverboard as opposed to a skateboard. The humor here does not hold up, even over the first viewing.

But where Back To The Future did science fiction comedy well, Back To The Future, Part II creates an adequate science fiction psychological horror. Removing the beginning and end, the middle in the alternate 1985 is intriguing, dark and in many ways terrifying. Marty finds himself living in the consequences of his own idea executed at the hands of someone completely unscrupulous. Biff Tannen, browbeaten by George McFly in Back To The Future through receiving his comeuppance, manages to regain his status as power broker through essentially buying the world.

And this section is remarkably well assembled. George McFly in the alternate 1985 never stopped loving Lorraine, allowing Marty to exist. Alternate Biff never stopped coveting her, which leads him to murder George and take Lorraine as his own. On a character level, this makes Biff the best-conceived character in the film and the one who works the best. And flaws here - like Lorraine's brother still being in prison (Biff's power seems so limitless that it seems inconceivable that Lorraine's brother, referenced as being in jail in the first movie, would still be in jail when Biff could simply have him released considering he owns the police. Honestly, what better dowry for Lorraine than Biff heroically getting her brother out of prison?) - are minor and are generally easily brushed aside.

Biff taking a center role in this portion, along with basically creating the plot of the movie, gives Thomas F. Wilson the chance to completely develop as an actor. Like his layered role in the short-lived series Freaks and Geeks (well worth your time and reviewed here!), Wilson is given the chance here to be more than simply the big dumb bully. More than just prosthetics, Wilson's portrayal of Biff Tannen in the future is a wonderful acting job with the characterization being expressed through a lot of body language and vocal modulation to make the character seem realistic. Wilson effortlessly portrays Biff alternately as thug, browbeaten and aged and decrepit. His man-on-top-of-the-world performance in the middle of the movie makes this possibly one of his most impressive displays of range. He keeps the movie watchable at all the moments when it otherwise would not be.

Christopher Lloyd is not given a lot to do in Back To The Future, Part II and one assumes his main reason for doing this movie was because he was promised a much juicier part in Back To The Future, Part III. As in the first, Lloyd is not given much to act with that stretches his range, instead doing a slightly different twist on the mannerisms and affectations that made him brilliant and memorable as Reverend Jim on Taxi. That's not to say that Lloyd is bad, just that the performance is nothing new or different here.

Michael J. Fox, charged with holding together the movie as its protagonist, is not given much to work with either. Because the film is so plot-driven, instead of character-centered, Fox is basically replaying the role he had in the first movie. While he does a decent impersonation of Crispin Glover's George McFly to portray Marty Jr. as browbeaten by Griff, he does little that is distinct or interesting. And the thrill of seeing Fox in women's clothing as Marlene McFly (Marty and Jennifer's daughter) wears off about three frames after she is introduced. Fox simply recreates his performance from Back To The Future to make Marty seem like the same character from the first.

Ultimately, this was a razor decision and as a movie on its own, Back To The Future, Part II is an inconsistent and - at best - average film that hinges on dazzle to open it (in 2015), a strong engaging middle (in the alternate 1985), and a self-referential latter third to try to win back the audience (back in 1955). The problem is that when the movie is not busy setting up the third or referencing the first, it fails to create something definitive and new. Or when it does (in the alternate 1985) it leaves far too quickly.

The DVD extras are good and some of the deleted scenes are so good they ought to have been in the movie. The commentary track is adequate and the behind-the-scenes special makes me wonder what ever happened to summer blockbusters advertising half their movie by showing the bulk of it in behind-the-scenes specials on network television. They were doing it as recently as the cinematic outing of The X-Files and it was equally a delight to see one on the DVD for Batman Returns (reviewed here!) which I remembered from the time as well.

Ultimately, this was a razor decision and because the movie does not stand well enough on its own, I put this as a completely average film not worth seeing on its own.

To see how Back To The Future, Part II works as a part of the greater series, check out my review on Back To The Future - The Complete Series on DVD here!

4.5/10

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

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




| | |

Returning To The Classics of My Childhood: Back To The Future Holds Up!

The Good: Decent acting, Interesting characters, Good plot, Moments of humor, DVD Extras
The Bad: Ultimately juvenile protagonist, Hammy interpretation of Libyan terrorists
The Basics: Fun to watch and generally funny, Back To The Future puts a young man in his past trying to hook up his parents so he can exist.


Back To The Future is one of those movies that I saw originally when it was in the movie theater, then earlier this week and never fully in between. So, my perspectives of the movie come from vague recollections of sitting in the theater (I remember the ending clearly from the big screen and little else) and the rather adult perspective of seeing it days ago. Like Jaws (a childhood favorite I recently rewatched as an adult to realize it's more about capitalism than sharks), my reviewing Back To The Future comes from an adult perspective and honestly, the movie is all-around satisfying.

Marty McFly, a high school student, hangs around with the eccentric adult Doctor Emmett Brown, whose wacky inventions never seem to work quite as they are supposed to. One early morning in 1985, Marty is called to a mall parking lot where Doc Brown has an invention that appears to actually work; a time machine in the form of a Delorean (a car). Unfortunately, to facilitate his creation, Doc Brown made a deal with some Libyans for plutonium. Libyans show up and kill Brown for using their plutonium in his time machine (as opposed to the bomb he supposedly was building for them) and Marty escapes using the Delorean.

Unfortunately for Marty, escaping in the time machine throws him back in time, to 1955, where he inadvertently saves his father, George McFly from a car accident. Hit by a car, Marty ends up in his future mother's bedroom and he comes to remember that the story seems familiar to him; he's heard it before as the story of how his mother and father met. While he meets with the 1955 version of Doc Brown to try to fix the time machine, Marty must work with George McFly (his future father) and Lorraine Baines (his future mother) to push the two together to make sure he comes into existence. Plagued by the school bully, Biff Tannen, George and Marty work to save Marty's existence by betting Lorraine to go to the school dance with Marty.

Back To The Future is a rare - and possibly the most successful - science fiction comedy. Like later movies that trend into the arena, like Galaxy Quest and Dude, Where's My Car?, Back To The Future hinges on an acceptance of elemental science fiction concepts, in this case, time travel. It takes enough time to adequately explain the phenomenon and the implications of it, which makes the movie remarkably accessible to those who are not fans of science fiction. Instead, the film tries its best to engage the viewer with a series of interesting characters.

Ignoring the time travel, Back To The Future quickly becomes a romantic comedy. Set in the 1950s, Marty McFly - using the name Calvin Klein (because that's the name on his underwear) - is trying to fix up George and Lorraine. While trying to fix Lorraine up with George, Calvin finds he has to dissuade Lorraine from any attraction towards himself and he and George must rescue the young woman from the aggressive, bully and sexually violent Biff Tannen.

Most of the characters are "types," but the overwhelming character study is actually intriguing. Biff is a bully who has never been put in his place, so of course he acts like the king of the castle. Because George never stood up to him, Biff continues to exploit George and abuse him over the years, which is why when Back To The Future begins, Biff is still a dominant person in George's life. George, under the thumb of the bully for over thirty years, never has the chance to grow, change or develop. He remains in Hill Valley, California, dominated by Biff, barely able to express anything to his wife and children other than his fear.

He's a terrible role model for Marty, who turns to Doc Brown for a father figure. It's never exactly clear how Doc Brown and Marty know one another because he's something of an old crank that makes the viewer wonder why he would have Marty around. Regardless, Marty has more a relationship with the eccentric scientist than with his own father, until he is able to go into the past and meet his father there and help him overcome his limitations through aiding his father in courting his mother.

But basically, this is a PG movie about rising up to overthrow bullies. It works quite well as story for young people about the importance of not letting bullies have their way and putting them in their place. Unfortunately, writers Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale fight violence with violence in Back To The Future. The solution, they posit, to thwarting bullies is to talk back and punch back. And the truth is, when it happens here, the audience is set up to cheer for the underdog.

This leads to the big character defect of Marty McFly. He can's stand being called a chicken. Completely afraid of being judged by others as a chicken, Marty will accept virtually any challenge that comes his way if for no other reason than to establish himself as someone who is not a chicken. This is a remarkably juvenile attitude and it's hard to watch Back To The Future and suspend disbelief enough to see actor Michael J. Fox baited at every turn by losers threatening him with being called a chicken.

Does it fit an 18 year old? Possibly. Should the 18 year old learn and grow? I sure hope so. But he doesn't in this movie. In fact, for a PG movie, there is a satisfying amount of violence, swearing and sexual innuendo. I'm not saying those things are necessary for a movie to be enjoyable, but movies portraying a young person who never swears when in life-threatening situations always seem to ring false to me. I mean, when being chased by Libyan terrorists with missile launchers, swearing seems reasonable and director Robert Zemeckis does not push for a more kid-friendly movie, instead opting for realism.

Regardless how much the characters are "types" as opposed to individuals, Back To The Future works well and holds up over multiple viewings because of the performances. Crispin Glover is wonderful as the nerdy and browbeaten George McFly. He's hard to watch at times for how his character takes abuse and Glover wonderfully emotes completely without saying a word at key points in the film. So, for example, his facial expressions the first moment Biff appears in 1955 and whacks him around where his character does not cry, but rather comes so close, it's agonizing to watch and a complete credit to Crispin Glover and his acting abilities.

Lea Thompson plays Lorraine and she's wonderfully different from her lead part on Caroline In The City. Thomas F. Wilson, who plays Biff Tannen, sets up his career as a big jock-type thug. Rewatching Back To The Future now made me instantly recognize James Tolkan, the principal Mr. Strickland here, from his detective role in Masters Of The Universe. The supporting cast works well to tell the story and flesh it out with realistic looking, wonderful performances.

Christopher Lloyd has the essential supporting role, oddly enough as what amounts to being the sidekick to Michael J. Fox's Marty McFly, as Doc Brown. Lloyd is good as Doc Brown, but he's not presenting the viewer as something essentially new and different. No, here he is remarkably like his character from Taxi, Reverend Jim. It's a great role and Lloyd plays the somewhat crazy scientist beautifully. But it's nothing we haven't seen from him before. He was well cast, as opposed to acting well in Back To The Future.

What does work, though, is the acting of Michael J. Fox. While the viewer must suspend their disbelief to believe that Fox is an 18 year old (possible more in this than in some of the sequels), Fox's portrayal of Marty McFly is energetic and interesting. Fox connotes the sense of seriousness that the temporal mishaps deserve. He sells the viewer on a young man terrified by the weirdness of his circumstances, yet able to cope with them. Fox presents a character very different from his role on Family Ties and makes the viewer believe him completely, believe in him completely, and that keeps the movie moving.

The DVD bonuses are decent, giving a lot o behind-the-scenes insight into the movie with extensive featurettes and a commentary track. Everything one could want to know about Back To The Future is on the DVD.

And while the film utilizes some real shit jokes - literally, as Biff runs into a manure truck - the film is generally funny and at its worst entertaining. And it ought to get credit for the clever concept, elevating the simple romantic comedy with an intriguing and engaging twist.

To see how Back To The Future works as a part of the greater series, check out my review on Back To The Future - The Complete Series on DVD here!

For other works featuring Christopher Lloyd, check out my reviews of:
The West Wing - Season 6
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

8/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my extensive index page on the subject by clicking here!

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




| | |

Advanced Product Placement And Temporal Object Theatre: Defeating Bullies In The Back To The Future Trilogy.

The Good: A good idea, Humor, Moments of acting, Themes, DVD extras
The Bad: Repetitive, Belabored for the resolution, Product placements
The Basics: In an ultimately good- if cinematically unremarkable- boxed set, the viewer learns about time travel and the importance of reasonable responses to bullies. Buy Pepsi!


Once upon a time, I saw Back To The Future and years later, I was baby-sitting and I arrived to my job to find my young charge watching the last two minutes of Back To The Future, Part III. Knowing that there were essentially six hours of the series that were coming to a head, I watched intently to see how the whole series was going to conclude. Doc Brown, intrepid time traveler, tells Marty McFly, his protege that it's important to live life to its fullest and essentially be free (this is not, I assure you, ruining the series to know). When I saw this, my thought was "That's a long way to go for such a simple conclusion." Now in possession of Back To The Future - The Complete Trilogy I'm left to evaluate this series not as individual works, but as a complete story.

There are truly great or perfect film trilogies, like Lord Of The Rings (as a trilogy, the extended edition would be a 10 in my book), great trilogies, like the two Star Wars trilogies (as trilogies, the greatness of certain episodes does not overcome the weakness of other episodes), and good/average trilogies. The Back To The Future trilogy falls within the confines of an average trilogy. Available as the boxed set Back To The Future - The Complete Trilogy, the series reveals itself as an interesting and original series plagued by its own repetitive nature and the ultimate simplicity of its message.

Marty McFly, friend and apprentice of local mad scientist Dr. Emmett Brown, finds himself on a time traveling adventure that takes him to the past to interact with his parents, the future to interact with his children and to the distant past to interact with his ancestors. Marty must make sure he comes into existence by hooking up his parents in 1955, keep his children from going to jail in 2015, and rescue Doc Brown from certain death in the Old West. Over the course of his travels, he bonds with Doc Brown, overcomes his reactions to bullies, and encounters various versions and permutations of his family members and their adversaries.

Back To The Future is a number of things and the simplest way to describe it would be as a science fiction comedy that uses time travel to teach Marty McFly two extraordinarily easy lessons. The first lesson - mentioned above - is a fortune cookie response to a series of intriguing events and seems like it ought to be obvious from the beginning. The second lesson (which does have some effect on the first) is much better illustrated: there is a time and place for.

Marty McFly is the son of George McFly, who was picked on as a child, bullied well into his adulthood and spawned a child who is, in turn, delinquent and unremarkable. Marty's interactions with George in 1955 lead George to stand up for himself and overcome his bully oppressor, Biff Tannen. The result of this is that when Marty returns to 1985, reality has been changed such that Biff is a browbeaten loser almost entirely dependent upon the good will of George (as opposed to using George as his lapdog). The series would seem to be saying that violence can be used to overcome violence and the result it that the oppressed can become a more benevolent oppressor.

Fortunately, writers Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis are not so simplistic in their evaluations and what they want to say. The Back To The Future Trilogy makes an argument for judgment, declaring that young people need to stand up to bullies, but not always responding with violence. George McFly's solution is to punch back, Marty McFly Jr.'s solution (in 2015) is to run away, and ultimately Marty learns in 1885 to simply let go of perceptions other people have and becomes an actualized adult who is not dependent upon the esteem of strangers for validation. This is an honorable, clever message that is well executed by the trilogy when viewed as a single movie.

This is because only when viewed as a single entity is there actual, organic character development. George McFly makes a character leap in Back To The Future and the viewer simply witnesses the transformation that one act of self-expression has when Marty sees him transformed in 1985 from loser to successful author. But in Back To The Future, Part II, none of the characters grow and it is only in Back To The Future, Part III that Marty and Doc overcome their limitations and flaws of the prior two films to actually do something interesting and become characters as opposed to types.

What keeps the trilogy interesting and engaging, then, is the use of setting. Back To The Future - The Complete Trilogy is concerned with four years, encompassing the history of Hill Valley, California by exploring the differences in setting in: 1985, 1955, 2015, and 1885 (in that order). More than simply establishing a story happening over different time periods, the trilogy uses the time travelers Marty and Doc to explore the differences and similarities in people and cultures at various points. So, for example, one of the most amusing moments in the series comes when Doc Brown in 1955 notes that the time machine was bound to break down because a key component was made in Japan, which Marty (from 1985) responds to with the idea that "All the best stuff is from Japan."

Unfortunately, the way that the trilogy makes much of its statements about enduring institutions in America is through obvious, insulting product placement. Watching this trilogy is designed to get the viewer to go out and buy Nike sneakers, drink Pepsi, fill up at Texaco and use Western Union. There a less than subtle advertisements for Toyota trucks and if Delorean was still making cars when this film was produced, you don't get much more of an ad than the cool time machine which is a retrofitted Delorean. There are key points where Nike, Texaco, Pepsi, and Western Union are prominently referenced, shown on screen for long, establishing shots and otherwise become integral to the plot in ways that pull the viewer out of the narrative. So, instead of being a drink that Marty likes to drink, Pepsi becomes a talking point, repeated over and over again when he requests a "Pepsi Free" at a diner and is told by the simple folk of 1955 that he can't get a Pepsi for free. In short, while product placement might be a reality of Hollywood" in this trilogy it is distracting and it's used more as an advertisement throughout than for actually establishing setting.

What does establish the setting is the peripheral ideas surrounding some of the product placements. Ironically, this does not always work in favor of the advertiser. For example, Texaco is present in 1955, 1985, and 2015. Over the years, the viewer is shown how the gas giant becomes less and less service oriented. In 1955 a full crew of workers rushes out to pump the gas, clean the car, and check the oil. In 1985, there is self service. In 2015, for greater prices, a robot simply fills the tank. There's less and less human interaction, less value for the dollar. Director Robert Zemeckis inadvertently sticks it to his sponsor in order to create a viable sense of reality. And, of course, in 1885, there is no Texaco, creating the idea that all institutions have a beginning and insinuating that all of them may end.

While much of the trilogy is motivated strictly by plot events, the characters are interesting and over the course of the series, there are some essential characters to recognize. They are:

Marty McFly - High school senior and assistant to Doc Brown. He is a generally delinquent young man who is the son of the browbeaten George McFly who wants nothing more than to have his father stand up for himself. Through the magic of time travel, Marty gets his wish and he is able to transform his family from losers into movers and shakers. He has a girlfriend, named Jennifer, and he affection for the eccentric scientist Dr. Brown leads him to risk his life to keep his family and existence intact throughout various times,

Dr. Emmett Brown - A quirky scientist living in Hill Valley, California, who has stumbled upon the secrets of time travel. Having devoted thirty years to making his theory a reality, Doc Brown wants to use time travel to better humanity, but finds it makes a mess out of existence instead. Freed of the needs to be productive and commercially successful, Brown finds his greatest joy living a simpler life in the Old West of the U.S.,

Biff Tannen - A bully who once tormented George McFly, Tannen is angry and able until put in his place by George McFly. Ruined and alone, Biff festers, lusting for Lorraine (who George married and spawned Marty with) until he one day recognizes the appearance of the time machine in 2015, leading him to try to exploit time travel to retain his power and influence in the past,

Strickland - Principal of the high school, coming from Hill Valley's tradition of law enforcement. He is involved in the lives of the McFly's and Tannen's throughout the years,

and Lorraine Baines/McFly - Impressed by strength and bravado, Lorraine has a big heart, but her whims become the prize that alters time and reality when she - alternately - falls for Marty, is rescued by George, and (in an alternate 1985) is simply taken as a prize by Biff Tannen.

In the series, these are the essential characters, though George McFly has a lot to do in the first movie and Needles (played by Flea of the Red Hot Chili Peppers) becomes integral in the latter two installments. Tannen, Brown and Marty are the ones who change reality the most and are worthy of the viewers attention.

This means that this trilogy hinges on the acting abilities of three actors at the end of the day. Two out of the three deliver consistently. Actor Thomas F. Wilson makes an auspicious performance as Biff (and Griff) Tannen. Wilson, who was amazing in the deeper role in Freaks And Geeks (reviewed here!) defines himself as an actor of some ability and depth in this series. He comes across easily as the imposing bully at first, but he extends his portrayal to the full use of his body language to age the character and actually makes the character edgy and dangerous well beyond the writing when he plays Biff in an alternate 1985 where Biff basically rules Hill Valley. More than simply a big guy or a dumb heavy, Wilson embodies Biff as a seething man broken after being a bully and festering for sixty years eager for revenge and he does the part well.

Christopher Lloyd is given the chance (eventually) to develop Dr. Emmett Brown beyond a simple reinterpretation of his Reverend Jim character from Taxi. Unlike other outings where he is given the chance to explore his range, Lloyd as Brown is basically a kooky mad scientist for much of the series. When he diverges from that, he becomes a delightful, intriguing character that is played with depth and human emotion one might not expect from Christopher Lloyd. He makes the part interesting, even if his ability to act is only revealed late in the series.

As it is, much of the movie rests on the acting ability of Michael J. Fox. He is fun to watch, though somewhat unremarkable as Marty McFly. Fox, who I like as an actor, does not lend much to the character outside his boyish good looks and his energy and enthusiasm. This is not a criticism of him as an actor rather an acknowledgment that Fox's role in this series is more an example of excellent casting than actual impressive acting. This is more playing to his niche as opposed to truly challenging him. This is not, for example, The American President where Fox played a part dramatically different from any he had played before.

As a side note, the unreliability of guns is wonderful in this trilogy. Guns are constantly jamming in the Back To The Future trilogy. I like that and it works well as a realism and dramatic element more than for a simple comedic moment when it pops up through the trilogy.

Back To The Future - The Complete Trilogy might work better as science fiction than as comedy, as the humor becomes reworked and somewhat old. So, for example, throughout the series Biff Tannen (and his ancestors and descendants) are run into trucks of manure. Rewatching the series, this becomes progressively less funny and more passe.

This boxed set includes almost the entire weight of each movie in bonus features with extensive commentaries, deleted scenes and featurettes (from when it was theatrically released and specially created for this boxed set) on each movie. There is nothing exclusive to this set that is not included on the individual disc releases, making it an equal value to buy the boxed set or the individual films, dependent on how much you like one or two vs. the entire series. This does not, however, include the animated series that followed up on the movie franchise.

So, at the end, the question is, is this worth it? The price value of the boxed set over the individual discs makes it worth it in my mind and the weakest episode ("Part II") works much better in context. So, if you're looking for an enjoyable time that spans six solid hours of entertainment, Back To The Future - The Complete Trilogy fits the bill for entertaining, even if its solutions are a bit simple for adults.

To learn more about the specifics of each movie as a stand alone film, check out my reviews of each film at:
Back To The Future
Back To The Future, Part II
Back To The Future, Part III

5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for an organized listing!

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





| | |

Seeing Everything With Childlike Simplicity: Forrest Gump Endures!

The Good: Heartwrenching in character, Excellent Acting, Fine Direction
The Bad: Slow through much of the film, Wandering Plot
The Basics: Charming and complex, Forrest Gump tells a wonderful story about a simple man in a changing world.


Perhaps one of the most appropriately awarded acting awards in the past two decades was Tom Hanks' Best Actor Oscar for Forrest Gump. Why? It truly does illustrate greatness for such an intelligent man to play, so flawlessly, a simpleton like Forrest.

Forrest Gump, the film and the character, begins on a bench waiting for a bus, telling person after person the story of his life. Almost immediately, it becomes clear that Forrest is special, in more ways than one. Telling the story of his childhood where he was beaten up because of his lack of intelligence by local boys in Alabama, Forrest relates how he went from running away from jerks to playing football to joining the U.S. Army, to playing ping pong professionally to becoming the owner of a fleet of shrimp boats to running across country several times. Along the way, he receives accolades from presidents and finds himself in the company of various awkward characters, including Bubba in the Army, Dan Taylor, Gump's Commanding Officer in Vietnam, and Mrs. Gump, Forrest's supportive mother. Throughout, Forrest's witless adventures interweave with those of Jenny, who epitomizes the lack of innocence of the times. In the late fifties, she poses for Playboy, in the sixties, she is a hippie, in the seventies, she is heavy in the drug culture, and in the eighties, she dies of what may be inferred as AIDS.

Forrest Gump is a pretty rich film fleshing out well the changing times of U.S. life over four decades with its protagonist barely appearing to age at all. Perhaps that's the magic of the film, the timeless quality to Forrest in contrast to the dated fashions of Jenny.

Of course, some would say that the magic of this film is in its seamless insertions of Forrest into historic events. He is at the University of Alabama when it is desegregated, he meets - and we see him with - Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. The effects whereby he is placed on known historical footage is quite incredible. And it works well.

Forrest Gump is an interesting character and an excellent example of how how other people react to a character defines who they are. Indeed, Forrest describes what he sees and more often we learn about him by how people react to him. And there's irony there: for example as Forrest tells his story, a young nurse - who we must suppose is compassionate - is rushed and does not listen to Forrest, whereas an elderly lady - for whom time must be a commodity at her age - sits and listens to Forrest with eager anticipation.

Indeed, the only real problem is how much the writer and director attempt to fit into the film. Too many sections of Forrest Gump feel long. So much happens in the first fifteen minutes that afterward, the viewer is anticipating more events in rapid succession. Instead, Forrest's military career is belabored. His thoughts on Jenny take a long time to develop and when it's not slow, it seems to wander pointlessly. Or perhaps aimlessly is a better word.

Even with those problems, the acting still makes it worth the price of admission alone. Tom Hanks is not the only person giving a great performance. Sally Field does a great job as Forrest's mother, as Mykelti Williamson does well fleshing out Bubba as someone different than Forrest but with some sense of being a kindred spirit. But the man who makes all of his scenes worth watching is Gary Sinise. He plays Lieutenant Dan with a wonderful mixture of resentment and fury that keeps us glued on him.

All in all, there's something here for everyone. There's humor, occasionally. There's romance, war loss, tragedy and, in the end, love. This is possibly the ultimate story of how love can take a lifetime to be realized. If only it didn't feel that long!

As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, available by clicking here!

For other works featuring Tom Hanks, please check out my reviews of:
Toy Story 3
Charlie Wilson’s War
Philadelphia

7.5/10

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

© 2010, 2009, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |

Mediocre Dickens: A Christmas Carol Underwhelms

The Good: Classic story with good moral
The Bad: No spice or sense of originality, Short, Obvious
The Basics: With animation that at times tries to mimic live-action and at others is clearly animated, the style of Robert Zemeckis's A Christmas Carol makes for a more erratic holiday film that is a very literal translation of Dickens' work.


I am not known for brevity, yet when I wrote for the other website, they would occasionally run a promotion based on keeping the reviews short and simple (which dumbed down a lot of complex reviews). Fortunately, some things truly are simple and easy to express with a minimal amount of verbiage. One such thing is Disney's A Christmas Carol. After all, given that the story is pretty well-known and it is animated, there wasn't a whole wealth of general information to give about the film. Given that I did not enjoy it, I figured this became an ideal short review for a film!

Starring Jim Carrey in a role that returns him to Christmas films following the blase special effects flick How The Grinch Stole Christmas, A Christmas Carol was presented in a disappointing Disney 3-D presentation last holiday season. Carrey provides the voice for Ebenezer Scrooge (as well as the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Yet-To-Come) and through much of the movie, it is pretty obviously Jim Carrey as he has the usual energetic and excited delivery, even in the trademark "Humbug" moments. Carrey never gets the voice as crotchety and mean as one might expect for the character, which pretty much undermines the character.

Ebenezer Scrooge is a pennypinching businessowner who hates the holidays and is unloving. He employs Bob Cratchit, whom he is cruel to and does not support well- enough to keep his children healthy (most notably the handicapped Tiny Tim). But one night, Scrooge is visited by his old business partner who warns him he will be visited by three ghosts and deny it as he might, he actually is. Over the course of the night, by witnessing how he has treated people, Scrooge comes to learn the consequences of his actions and the true meaning of Christmas.

Disney's A Christmas Carol is an animated film and that is where most of my beef with the movie comes in. Because the film is mostly known as far as plot and character development - this is a very family-friendly version of Dickens' social commentary - it is largely trading on style. Unfortunately, the style is quite erratic. By this, I mean it does not know which it wants to be, an animated film or an animated film mimicking a live-action film. There are moments when one forgets they are watching an animated movie because the detailing and coloring on Scrooge and the backgrounds are so realistic that they look amazing. Sadly, though, this is not at all consistent. Instead, there are points when the film becomes annoyingly blockish, like when the Ghost of Christmas Past pops up. Suddenly, the lighting and surroundings look more unreal than they did moments before! Outside the obvious moments - like when Scrooge is launched high into the sky - where the unreality of the situation calls for comic presentation, A Christmas Carol seems to devolve at awkward points where the movie just feels sloppy, especially considering how amazing the lighting and detailing is in most points. Pick a lane, Robert Zemeckis!

As well, A Christmas Carol was presented originally in Disney 3-D and it makes poor use of the medium. The three-dimensional effects are only impressive in one or two scenes and given the price of 3-D tickets in most markets, they effect is not so special as to wow most children and adults will likely feel cheated by shelling out more money on the more expensive tickets.

Outside the style, this is very much a typical morality tale and viewers know exactly what they are getting going in. This is a family-friendly film that tells the classic story in a very straightforward way. Unfortunately, it is inconsistent with the flare and the vocal presentations do not always pop with real character. At least it's better than Ghost Of Girlfriends Past!

For other Christmas movies, please check out my reviews of:
Four Christmases
Love Actually
The Muppet Christmas Carol

2.5/10

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

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




| | |