Showing posts with label Roland Emmerich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roland Emmerich. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Coming Late To The Party; I Get Around To Watching And Reviewing ID4


The Good: Moments of character, Judd Hirsch, Concept
The Bad: Special effects underwhelmed, Much of the acting, character and plot, One too many character groups
The Basics: In an overall disappointing science fiction summer blockbuster extravaganza, aliens arrive at Earth to blow everything up and it's up to Americans to come together to stop them.


The first time I encountered Independence Day, it was still known as ID4. I was at a Star Trek convention and the trailer was being shown and the audience got it. Apparently, our mass culture couldn't fathom a number at the end of the title unless it was a sequel and in the weeks before the film was theatrically released in 1996 the title was changed to Independence Day. At the time, I opted against it. I "got" the concept, but even at the time, the special effects did not look all that great to me and I avoided it. I was given the opportunity to see the special edition DVD and I decided it was time. The shortest version of this review I can possibly give is: I could have gone to my grave just fine having never seen this movie.

On July second, aliens arrive in giant motherships over major world cities. There are approximately fifteen of these giant, disc-shaped starships that break off the true mothership which is stationed near the moon and has about a quarter the mass of the moon. Scientist David Levinson soon realizes that these aliens are neither funloving nor here for our planet's cuisine when he discovers they are using our satellite network to communicate around planet a countdown. He rushes to the side of the american president, Thomas Whitmore, a possibility because his ex-wife works for him, with his findings. Whitmore, Levinson and the highest members of the government take off moments before the aliens let loose a barrage that utterly destroy's the world's major cities.

Over the course of the ensuing days, the military strikes back and fails, including marine pilot Steven Hiller. As Whitmore and Levinson work to outsmart the invaders with a trip to Area 51, which is as real as every conspiracy theorist in existence would hope, Hiller journeys with an alien pilot from a downed enemy craft to the same location. As humanity is looking at extinction, all of the main characters converge and, working together, work to thwart the invading armada.

The thing is, from the very first moments of Independence Day, this feels like something we've seen before. I watched the special edition with 9 minutes of restored footage, putting this movie at the 153 minute (2 1/2 hours) mark. It felt much longer. And while alien invasion movies are not new, this rendition felt especially canned, felt like something very specific the viewer had seen before. Pacing, story structure and sheer number of characters is almost identical to the mid-80s masterpiece mini-series V (reviewed here!). This is more than just nitpicky; ID4 was so derivative of V that the ships hovering over the major cities look almost identical, save that in this newer incarnation they are black as opposed to gray.

Now, I'm someone who likes epics, but Independence Day is more sloppy than grand in scale. There are no less than 5 groups that have stories that need to be resolved: Whitmore and his wife (who is stranded out in Los Angeles), Hiller and his stripper girlfriend, David and his ex-wife (and we'll throw his father in here, too, so as not to make it look ridiculously overwhelming), Russell and his family, and the relationship between the President and the intelligence community. The thing is, the movie only works as well as it does with all of these various elements because it is constructed to work so well with them. What I mean by that is that this movie could have used at least one less of these threads (I'd opt for ridding the movie of alien-abductee Russell Casse and his ridiculous subplot wherein his children need medicine) and used that time to develop some of the other threads more fully. This would have resulted in some of the plot points needing different resolution, but I could have lived with that.

The other annoying factor of ID4 is that for an epic, it's awfully limited, terribly ethnocentric. Even in the belabored Signs (reviewed here!) it's not just the Americans that are fighting the aliens. As a result, other places in the world learn how to thwart the aliens quicker than the Americans. In Independence Day, the U.S. is leading the charge and it just feels forced. A movie that is trying to put the entire world in peril could use more of a multiethnic cast. For something that was supposed to be so big and devastating, this movie seems very insulated within the confines and prejudices of the United States. A perfect example of this prejudice comes in the listing of cities around the world that are being attacked. Three are in the U.S. None are in China. If the point of the invasion is to wipe out humanity, I'd go for where there are a lot of humans!

Outside the weird dichotomy of smallness of scope combined with having far too many characters working out relationships, ID4 suffers because as a special effects movie, it's not terribly special or sensible. In fact, there's dark humor in viewing it for the first time here in 2007; when New York City has been leveled two of the only buildings still standing are the World Trade Center buildings. And with that in mind, the silliness of the attack pattern of the aliens is revealed. If you want to cripple the world, attacking the halls of power, industry and economy is a great strategy. The aliens center on the Empire State Building (not the WTCs), the White House (not Congress or K Street), and downtown Los Angeles (no complaints with that choice). We are told they attack Moscow, London, Bangladesh as well. Leveling major cities makes a great deal of sense, but in order to make the special effects aspect of the movie work, the film sacrifices any sense of realism or substance. Alien ships hover over New York City and the people there wait for the President to ask them to leave in an orderly fashion?! That's b.s.! Sure, blowing up the White House looks great for movie trailers and posters, but it's not the most sensible target.

There are any number of technical aspects to make this movie problematic, but in the long run, special effects are only one point in the scale. As for the numerous plot problems, they count for more, but the cumulative effect is that the plot is usually used to serve the effects and the story elements that are most troublesome come in the character front.

None of the characters works in a completely believable fashion, save perhaps Area 51 denizens Dr. Brackish Okun and Major Mitchell. General Grey essentially turns over the military directly to the President, which I can live with up until the moment the President decides he's hopping in a plane. Whitmore tells Grey, "I'm a fighter pilot . . ." and Grey accepts that based on Whitmore's prior military experience in the Gulf War. The thing is, Grey's responsibility there was to note that Whitmore was no longer a fighter pilot, he's the President and there's no way such a general would let the last surviving world leader into a combat position for the simple fact that if he falls, there is no one left to lead.

Captain Hiller works for the most part, but his relationship with Jasmine is rushed and seems forced with the pace of the apocalypse on him. Moreover, his character is one who exerts himself the most physically over the course of the movie, yet we never see him sleeping. He's always doing something. Military or not, that's hard to buy. Even harder is David Levinson, who might well be a genius, but he goes from being fall-down drunk to solving the crisis before dawn on July 4. His relationship with ex-wife Constance is completely canned and simply drags the movie down. The only purpose it serves is to get Levinson to the President. Once that is done, it simply becomes another annoying thread to be resolved.

ID4 has a pretty impressive cast, though that too is not without its serious problems. There are wonderful actors and actresses who get juicy and/or fun parts, including Brent Spiner as Dr. Okun, Adam Baldwin as Major Mitchell, Harvey Fierstein as Marty, James Rebhorn as Albert, May McDonnell as the first lady, and Vivica A. Fox as Jasmine. They are all wonderful and they are generally playing roles that they might not usually be associated with (with the obvious exception of Fierstein). Will Smith does fine as Captain Hiller and Jeff Goldblum does quite well at convincing the viewer he is a computer genius as David Levinson.

The two big acting problems come in the forms of Robert Loggia and Bill Pullman. Loggia spends the film acting like Gene Hackman - in one of his understated roles - as General Grey. Loggia does a great and unflinching Hackman impression throughout the entirety of the movie, but he adds nothing of his own unique zest to the role.

Bill Pullman is the dealbreaker as President Thomas Whitmore. Bill Pullman could pull off the role of President now, perhaps. In ID4, he fails to do that, not because of his age but because of his bearing. Watching Pullman in this movie suggests nothing of how the man could have possibly gotten to his position. In short, trying to imagine Whitmore running a campaign and actually winning an election stymies even those of us with an extensive political imagination.

The less said about Randy Quaid as Russell, the better, though one wonders if he gets tired of playing dumb hicks.

The shining acting gem in this movie is Judd Hirsch. Yes, in a film with acting sensations of the younger variety like Fox, Goldblum, Pullman and Smith, it is Hirsch who dominates every scene he is in. He's phenomenal as David's father Julius, slouching around with his heavy Jewish accent as a parody of the elderly Jew who may be annoying, but is always right. Hirsch is amazing in the role, though it doesn't take long for his character to start popping up in scenes that he has no legitimate business being in.

It may be longer, it may be older and it may be less violent and spectacle-filled, but V tops this movie and is much worthier of one's time and attention. It is smart, menacing and clever in all the ways that this movie should have been, but was not.

For other alien invasion films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Battle Los Angeles
The X-Files: Fight The Future
Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters


5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

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

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

2012: A Very Average Film That’s Exactly What We Expected.




The Good: Amazing special effects
The Bad: Predictable plot and character elements.
The Basics: A big special effects film that does little that other disaster films have not already done, 2012 is a complete disappointment.


It is hard these days for me to get excited or even overly critical about some movies; they simply are That Type Of Movie. So, for example, when one is watching Volcano and a volcano erupts in a major urban center, it’s hard to get upset about it or take it seriously once one accepts the basic premise of the film. After catching a screening of 2012, I am feeling pretty much the same way about that film. This is not a sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey or 2010: The Year We Make Contact, this is more like Roland Emmerich’s prior disaster flick, The Day After Tomorrow. As such, it is what it is, a big special-effects driven film that is predictably light on plot surprises or character development.

The thing is, even for the type of movie that it is, viewers are likely to feel somewhat cheated by 2012. For those who have seen even previews for The Day After Tomorrow and the movie poster for 2012, there are few surprises even with the quality of the special effects. 2012 features cutting-edge special effects and the disaster scenes of earthquakes, floods and raging fires are impressive, but that’s pretty much the movie is all about and the character elements are cliché and merely act as filler between tremendous special effects sequences. In other words, the emotional resonance one gets from watching the extended trailer is about all they are likely to get from the actual film and, truth be told, the best special effects shots are included in the trailer. If you've got a decent HDTV, you lose nothing by seeing this on Blu-Ray or DVD.

In the wake of suicides in Guatemala that draw mass attention to the Mayan prediction that the world will end on December 21, 2012, the top secret Institute For Human Continuity begins building massive subterranean shelters so that humanity will not be wiped out if the worst actually comes. Divorcee Jackson Curtis is visiting Yellowstone with his children where he meets Charlie Frost. Frost tells Jackson about the end of the world and when seismic events begin occurring, it appears he is correct and the Mayans may have called it right. So, Jackson and his son and daughter make a beeline back to Los Angeles in the attempt to get Jackson’s ex-wife, Kate and get to one of the secret arks.

What follows is a sequence of special effects shots where nature itself seems to be chasing the Curtis family with fire, floods and earthquakes. There’s a daring escape and . . . okay, I’m done with the plot recap. Usually, I try to do two paragraphs of plot recap, but I can’t even muster up the enthusiasm for it with this one. 2012 is another film absolutely ruined by the preview trailers as even the moments of harrowing escape were included in the trailer and, truth-be-told, by the time it comes up in the actual film I didn't care about Jackson, Kate, Noah, Lily (their kids) or any of the political officials who bother to keep going about their jobs as the end of the world comes.

And my hopes that 2012 would be one of those films that starts off as one type of film and then becomes something else did not pan out. Despite the idea of the Mayans correctly predicting the end of the world (and, ultimately, how they knew), there is little richness to the movie and so many elements were borrowed from The Day After Tomorrow as to make most of the film seem like a rehash of something we have seen before (even for those of us who only watched part of The Day After Tomorrow while substituting a high school class). The character elements in 2012 feel more canned, though and the film ultimately comes with no real moral or message.

As a result, 2012 does not have the emotional resonance it ought to have. Jackson Curtis is pretty much an everyman and his belief in Charlie’s dire predictions about the state of the world are supposed to be made more believable by the fact that Jackson is a science fiction writer. But in today’s world with thousands of science fiction fans, Jackson is very much the everyman and as a result, viewers are left feeling a lack of caring for him. Why should Jackson Curtis and his family be saved from the demise of the world? What makes him special and worth using to repopulate the species? The answer is, unfortunately, nothing. And this makes it hard to care about him.

As well, the whole idea of saving the population comes across as pathetically optimistic and here 2012 continues its trend as That Kind Of Movie. Unlike The Day After Tomorrow, which serves as a somewhat bloated cautionary tale about the environmental impact of man, 2012 is far less concrete. The end of the world is coming . . . some of humanity can be saved. This film is not going to get any government on Earth concerned enough to build something that would allow the planet to be evacuated. So, why, then, are Emmerich and co-writer Harald Kloser obsessed with trying to save humanity? This reminds me of a graphic novel I recently read, Batman R.I.P. (click here for my review) where readers were teased with the idea of the death of Batman. This is a great idea and readers care about it because they care about the character. When that is taken away from us, though, the reader feels cheated. Similarly, in 2012, because none of the characters in any way remarkable or special in any demonstrable way which makes us care about them, viewers looking for something truly new and different have to ask, “Where is the harm in killing everyone?” In other words, the emotional catharsis that could come from the creation of the arks and the protagonists making it to them only matters if one cares about the people getting saved. If they aren’t extraordinary, what’s the harm in making them fail?

Oh yeah, it’s That Kind Of Movie. The problem with 2012 is that it is obvious and we’ve seen it all before, in vastly more interesting ways. John Cusack gives us nothing that we haven’t seen before in his role of Jackson Curtis. The child actors in the movie are homogeneously bad as well and even Danny Glover seems a bit stiff as President Wilson (45, not 28!). Even Amanda Peet, who is usually one of my favorites, slumps through her role as the archetypal protective mother and left me wondering why she was attached to the project. And for those hoping Woody Harrelson’s performance might be worth seeing, Zombieland managed to trump his weird character quota for last year.

Even if 2012 is surprisingly mindless special effects action adventure tripe, well, it’s still tripe. The inability to care about any of the characters sinks this movie and while it no doubt won the box-office race the weekend it came out, it’s not because of the quality of the work. Anyone who wants to be at all surprised about this film ought not to watch the preview trailer or look up anything on the IMDB either as both reveal critical information about the storyline and “universe” of 2012.

For other apocalyptic scenario films, please check out my reviews of:
Repo Men
Battlefield Earth
Doomsday

4/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page!

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




| | |