After Years Of Being Encouraged To View,I Sit Down And Fail To Enjoy The Holiday.

The Good: Moments (infrequent) of acting, Moments of charm
The Bad: Utterly predictable, Much of the character elements, Light on DVD bonus features, Acting
The Basics: In The Holiday, Kate Winslet and Cameron Diaz lead a decent cast, almost universally performing poorly, in a boring, terribly predictable romantic comedy.


My mother has been on me to watch The Holiday for the last two years. In fact, it might be the very first movie she finished watching and insisted right away that I sit down and watch. I have been busy, between writing novels and reviewing movies that I want to review, but lately a break in my schedule and supply ran out, so I decided to give my mother's beloved movie a chance.

Nancy Meyers, who directed Something's Gotta' Give (reviewed here!) and What Women Want (reviewed here!), two movies I found terribly average, returns to write and direct this Christmas-themed romantic (alleged) comedy. I was largely underwhelmed by the movie, most notably by the acting. It seemed like all of the actors had moments they were decent in, until the moments they were used in familiar ways (save Kate Winslet, who was fine throughout). But for the most part, this is a predictable, obvious romance movie with predictable pairings and a pretty obvious resolution.

Iris Simpkins is working with the love of her life at a publication where she writes about society's great weddings. She is hopelessly in love - in an unrequited way - with Jasper Bloom, with whom she flirts and swaps Christmas gifts up until the moment that he abruptly announces he is engaged to be married to someone else. Devastated, Iris looks to flee. This, conveniently enough, occurs more or less at the same time that movie trailer maker Amanda Woods breaks up with her long-term boyfriend for an affair she suspected he had and soon confirms for her. Looking to get out of Los Angeles, she finds a place in Surrey, England, to swap houses with and the person she is swapping with happens to be Iris. As Iris goes to Los Angeles to a much bigger, luxurious place, Amanda finds herself in a cozy cottage in Surrey where there is nothing to do but wrestle with her personal demons.

In Amanda's house and neighborhood, Iris encounters the film composer Miles, but seems even more drawn to the elderly writer in the neighborhood, Arthur Abbott, who she rescues while he is wandering one day. As Iris avoids Jasper, she helps Arthur get into shape for an award's ceremony in his honor and discovers Miles is charming and less attached than he initially seems. Amanda, thrilled to be away from Ethan, finds herself in the company of Graham, who appears to be something of a womanizer . . . until Amanda meets the women in his life and realizes things have become complicated between them!

The Holiday starts slow, develops to boring and ends lackluster. In fact, the only parts of the movie worth watching are the moments between Iris and Arthur. Here's why: those parts of the movie use the cast in the best possible way and eliminate most of the problems the film possesses. They move, they have character elements that make sense (sort of) and the actors and acting in them are decent. Viewed out of context of the rest of the movie, even the problematic aspects of those scenes work.

Arguably the best moment of the film, the moment that actually has something original and different to say, in The Holiday comes in one of the scenes between Arthur and Iris. That moment has Arthur evaluating Iris as the "best friend" role in her own life. It is a decent monologue and a great concept and Iris latches onto it. The problem is, it doesn't fit Iris's character. Arthur gets it right; she is not the leading lady in her own life, but she isn't even the best friend; she is a non-speaking supernumerary (background performer). Iris is such a nonentity and there is so little interest paid in the way she is painted from the outset that her portions are painful and boring to watch up until the time that Arthur comes into the movie to share the screen with her.

Romantic comedies do not necessarily have to trade on surprise, so predictability in a movie like The Holiday is not necessarily devastating. But in this case, everything is predictable and it is unpleasant how simple the writer and director assumes the audience is. While the mood at the outset is interesting and appropriately painful, at least in the Iris/Jasper relationship, the film soon fails to trade on even that intrigue. As a result, Miles and Iris come together simply by the virtue that they are proximate to one another at the holidays. Neither one seems emotionally intelligent. Come to think of it, neither does Graham, who latches right on to Amanda, who has just ended a five-year relationship.

In the movie filled with people who are otherwise smart, but appear to be emotional idiots, the least interesting characters are Amanda Woods and Ethan. Amanda excising Ethan works, but the resulting need to get away makes little sense to those schooled in the way of psychology hardly seems real. For sure, there is no one way to react to trauma and change, but Amanda gets rid of Ethan, cuts a perfect trailer (which was one of the problems Ethan had with her) and flees rather than bury herself in her work. If the movie had even had a single scene where she wore out her workers cutting films before she was forced to take a vacation, the character would have worked much, much better.

That said, the only truly interesting man in the movie is Arthur, largely because he is the character that seems to be best acted (an irony, considering that Arthur is probably much closer to actor Eli Wallach than any of the other actors are to their characters). The problematic aspects of the movie are all exploded by the acting. Edward Burns and Rufus Sewell are strangely bland in their roles as rejected male love interests. Jude Law and Jack Black both have moments where they are decent, but those moments fade ridiculously quickly when both of them fall back on their standards. Law is fine up until the moment where he is expected to give the Jude Law Penetrating Look #5 that is supposed to make all of the women swoon and . . . completely does not fit his character of Graham.

Similarly, Jack Black is either stuck into his same niche or the part was altered when he was cast or the role of Miles was written with him in mind. I write this because Black is great up until a scene in a video store with Winslet. Miles - up until that point - has been friendly, but serious and grounded and the role had Jack Black actually acting. But in that scene, he begins singing various scores from movies and his character never recovers from that. Yes, it is after that that the scene from the trailer with the "brushing the boob" line comes up and that is a perfectly Jack Black delivery. Unfortunately, it is not in character for Miles so much as it is Black.

At least Jack Black is given the moments to play before his character or performance turn south. Cameron Diaz is not even given that chance. Instead, she starts off with the same bug-eyed, momentarily spastic performance she has become known for and she never pulls herself out of it. This is not even for a moment a stretch for her as an actress and it is reminiscent of several prior roles of hers.

The only actress who seems to hold it together is Kate Winslet, who is decent as Iris, though the character is far more boring than Arthur or Miles ever admits. Winslet is good, but the role is not great.

This is, perhaps, emblematic of the entire movie. The Holiday is a ridiculously simple pitch concept: two women swap houses and fall in love with people in their new setting as a result. The problem is it never becomes more than that and it is not a great concept even with that. On DVD, there are previews for other movies and a commentary track with writer/director Nancy Meyers that I was not bored or interested enough to subject myself to. There are plenty of other movies out there I would rather devote my time and energy to.

For other works with Eli Wallach, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
Mystic River
Keeping The Faith

4.5/10

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

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

Illusions Of Originality, Realities Of Disappointment: The Illusionist

The Good: Moments of plot, Moments of acting, Special effects
The Bad: Light on character, Predictable, Derivative, Inconsistent accents
The Basics: In The Illusionist, which is filmed big, the viewer waits for something remarkable and instead finds something exceptionally common.


It was not my idea to watch The Illusionist, but out of the choices I was presented, it seemed like the best option of the bunch. Having now watched it, I wonder what I was missing by not seeing Quills. The Illusionist suffers from a death of a thousand cuts, but fundamentally it was unworthy of recommendation for its lack of originality. Neil Burger essentially rewrites The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) as a love story and it's fairly blah.

Eisenheim, a young illusionist, has exceptional talent. As a child he had a brief infatuation with Sophie, a girl of a better station in life. Separated by finances and social standing, Sophie and Eisenheim separate and are reunited years later in Vienna where they rekindle their love. Sophie, unfortunately, is soon to be wed to the Crown Prince Leopold who is the jealous type. When Sophie is killed, Eisenheim's illusions seem to conjure her and Inspector Uhl is caught between righting a murder and the obligations of protecting the monarchy.

Now the thing is, I respect some of the bigger actors in The Illusionist. Rufus Sewell, who plays the Crown Prince Leopold, was amazing in Dark City (reviewed here!) Edward Norton was fabulous in The 25th Hour (reviewed here!). Unfortunately, The Illusionist does not make use of most of the acting talents in the movie. Edward Norton and Jessica Biel (Sophie) fail to carry their accents, making many of the moments of their performances worthy of wincing. Rufus Sewell is outfitted with the most ridiculous looking mustache seen in film since . . . well, possibly ever.

The only actor who stood out for me was Paul Giamatti. Giamatti gained my attention for his role as the artistic buffoon in Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) where I had the sense he was being underused. Here Giamatti shines with an intellectual performance that rightfully earns him second billing. Giamatti is convincing as Uhl and his conflict, that of morality vs. preservation of State is the only truly original aspect of The Illusionist. He steals every scene he is in.

The other noteworthy aspect of The Illusionist is the quality of the special effects. The Illusionist utilizes state of the art special effects and there is no sense of that in the film. That is to say, we never truly feel like we are watching a special effects movie. Instead, this has the feel of watching an actual magic show, with all of the clever insinuations of bending reality and misdirection that comes with that.

Unfortunately, the one performance and the effects are not enough to save The Illusionist. Its pacing is way off, with a strong beginning that quickly degenerates into a series of plodding events that make the viewer wish we were back at the beginning already. The film is unnaturally slow and it is disturbing to watch the pace of the movie abruptly hit the breaks. I was mildly surprised to see the movie was 110 minutes; the film had the feel of being barely 90 minutes with much of the time being spent with filler to get it up to the minimum recommended length. In short, what Burger might have intended to use to set mood merely delays the inevitable.

Sadly, the romance in The Illusionist is nothing to write home about. There is no chemistry between Biel and Norton and less between Biel and Sewell. Instead, we are subjected to generally passionless characters acting or reacting with the supposed motivations of love and jealousy that the viewer never feels is a serious motivation for any of the characters involved.

And there are nitpicky details, which are almost always a problem in movies that hinge on a reversal like the one required to end The Illusionist. So, for example, Inspector Uhl returns to where he believes Sophie was killed some time after her murder and finds a clue. He finds the clue in the hay in a stable. Unless these are the cleanest horses in history, given that some time has passed, one would think the hay would have been changed. This is just one of the things that leaps instantly into my mind.
More problematic are the character aspects and how the actors attempt and surrender accents at various points in the movie. Regardless of the minutiae, the resolution to The Illusionist is terrible and it boggles my mind how the movie was made given that the end is such an obvious rip-off of The Usual Suspects, which is a vastly superior film.

For other films with magic as a component, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Death Defying Acts
The Last Airbender
The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader

4.5/10

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.
| | |

Easy To Look At . . . And Worth The Watch: Dangerous Beauty!

The Good: Nice cinematography, Decent acting, Good costumes, Directing
The Bad: Somewhat predictable character arc, the Inquisition, Disappointing DVD extras
The Basics: In Venice, a courtesan finds herself unable to be with the man she loves, so she loves the one she's with.


Marshall Herskovitz, the brainchild behind ABC's under-supported and too short-lived drama Once And Again, seems to have a following of people who get disappointed by his DVDs. I am one of them. As with the Once And Again season one boxed set (reviewed here!), Dangerous Beauty has no significant or meaningful DVD extras. There's no commentary, there's not much outside the movie's trailer. At least the DVD is inexpensive enough. Maybe Herskovitz doesn't like talking about his works. It can't be that he's ashamed of directing Dangerous Beauty.

Dangerous Beauty tells the story of Veronica Franco, a Venetian courtesan (read: prostitute of legitimate social standing in Venice at the time) who falls in love with Marco Venier, a good-looking, charming nobleman. Actually, she starts out simply as a woman who loves a man, but Marco will not marry her because she does not come from the right social standing or wealth or some other such nonsense. Veronica then becomes a courtesan, which involves her having a good deal of sex without Marco. Veronica becomes powerful in Venice, Marco (despite marrying another woman) still pines for her, and there's a lot of tension around the whole romance. The tension between Marco and Veronica is complicated by Marco's jealous hack of a poet brother, Maffio, and by impending war which necessitates Veronica bedding the King of France.

What goes a long way to helping Dangerous Beauty is that the actors are all fabulous and the film looks good. The scenery looks good, the people look good, the costumes look good; this is an easy movie to sit and watch. Indeed, part of what makes it easy to watch is the casting. Despite the obvious Hollywood-style beauty of the film's star, Catherine McCormack, no one in the movie is over-the-top, ridiculously, out-of-reach beautiful. In fact, the men have a wide array of faces and bodytypes and Rufus Sewell has a character to his form that makes him seem less like the typical Hollywood male.

But in addition to McCormack and the non-threatening looks of Rufus Sewell, the film goes out of its way to have a diverse range of body types (if not ethnicities, a reality for a period piece). Oliver Platt rounds out the main cast with a look that is definitely not the Hollywood standard. Similarly, other stars in the movie, like Fred Ward (Domenico) and Jake Weber (King Henry), look different from the typical chiseled men in movies. The net result is that this is a movie that is very easy to watch because it feels very accessible. Because the people look more like people, it brings realism and humanity to them and their struggles. Moreover, it adds realism to many of the men utilizing the services of a courtesan. It's always harder to believe that someone who is the ideal of beauty (male or female) who looks like they could have anyone, would do such things. Here, the casting makes a huge difference to the viewer believing in the time and place of the story.

The lone drawback of Dangerous Beauty as a movie, is actually two things deeply intertwined. The story of Dangerous Beauty is basically that of just about any romantic drama: two people love one another, their love is either forbidden or impractical to maintain, they find themselves apart, they still love each other, they make a change to end up together (or, in the rarer story, something happens forever preventing them from being together). It's a pretty classic plot. Thus, as Marco goes to war for Venice, we wait for his return to wrap up the romance and - given the tenor of the rest of the movie - it seems unlikely that Marco and Veronica will not finish the movie together or, at least, still in love.

The problem here is with the method. The Inquisition ("Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!") suddenly pops up in Venice with all sorts of authority and tries Veronica as a witch. The problem here is that there was nothing in the story to suggest (other than actual history not relayed in the movie) that Venice was a terribly devout lot of Catholics to begin with or even interested in letting the Pope rule over anything. In fact, there is such utter disregard for the Church throughout the first three quarters of the film that when the Inquisition suddenly appears as the Plague begins to ravage Venice, it feels like a red herring in the story. And, in the end, all it truly serves to do is allow Marco to stand up and say the things to Veronica that the audience already knows about his love for her. In the end, there is no net gain from the Inquisition stuff, there is no genuine catharsis and there is no feeling that we have viewed anything miraculous, because we already knew how Marco felt.

Conversely, for the type of film this is, Maffio makes an excellent villain from the start. His character arc, which allows him to become affiliated with the Inquisition, seems very real and natural. The problem is, once the forces of the Inquisition are put to bay by Marco's heartfelt plea, Maffio and all of his character conflict disappears and it seems like it was never so impressive to begin with.

In the end, though, the film is worthwhile, not simply for its look, but for its substance. Herskovitz seems to attach himself to projects where the dialog is both sharp and witty and stunningly realistic. The writing credits on Dangerous Beauty go to Margaret Rosenthal and Jeannine Dominy, who have a keen ear for quick dialog; it's easy to see why Herskovitz would want to be associated with this project. If only he wanted to talk about it, though . . .

For other works Marshall Herskovitz was involved in, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Love And Other Drugs
Once And Again - Season 2
I Am Sam

7/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movie reviews I have written.

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

| | |

Johnny Depp And Angelina Jolie In The Tourist: A Thriller That Actually Thrills!

The Good: Clever, Decent pacing, Great acting, Moments of character.
The Bad: Obvious to fans of The Usual Suspects, Moments the soundtrack is overbearing.
The Basics: A bit too close to The Usual Suspects with the twist, The Tourist gives Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp a chance to show off their acting skills.


Every now and then, I go into a movie blind. I don't watch any previews, I don't read any reviews and I do not spend any time investigating it in any way beforehand. Because so many opportunities for screenings come to me, knowing nothing about a film in advance is a very rare thing indeed for me. But tonight, as I prepared to take in The Tourist, I relished in the fact that I knew nothing about the movie.

In fact, as I listened to chatter about the film as I waited for the lights to go down, I learned only two things about The Tourist. The first was that this is the latest film written (or co-written) by Christopher McQuarrie. McQuarrie wrote the perfect film The Usual Suspects and that gives him a pretty high street cred with me. In retrospect, I think I would have enjoyed The Tourist more if I had never seen his masterwork. There are too many similarities with this and The Usual Suspects for my liking and it shows a distinctive lack of imagination on McQuarrie's part. The other thing I learned was that The Tourist is opening opposite The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Voyage Of The Dawn Treader and I can only presume that the studio is hoping to have a more adult picture to compete with that with. In that regard, The Tourist is a success.

The Tourist is a suspense thriller with a case of mistaken identity and layers to it, but it is a far less subtle work than The Usual Suspects. Even so, it is enjoyable and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck deserves a lot of credit for getting a very different performance out of Johnny Depp than, say, Tim Burton does. In this, Depp is cool, collected and not at all strange, which makes the argument that he still retains the talent for acting, not just fitting perfectly into typecast roles.

Elise Ward is being followed by a police investigation unit in Paris, led by Acheson. There, she receives a letter from Pearce that instructs her to be on a specific train and to burn the letter. Elise complies and she flees the police to take the train to Venice. On the train, she meets Frank, choosing him - as the letter insisted she do - because of his resemblance is height and stature to Pearce, who has had his body altered with the billions he has stolen from a businessman. But the British police are not fools and before the train arrives, they have recovered enough of the letter to know that they have been set up and Acheson calls off the INTERPOL agents on site.

The failure of Frank to be arrested at that point forces Ward to adapt and she brings Frank back to her hotel, which has accommodations lavishly presented by Pearce. She is also given a directive from Pearce to meet him at a ball two days later. While Ward waits meeting the man she loves, Frank is hunted ruthlessly by the man Pearce took for his billions. Ward's story becomes more complicated, but Frank is put in the crosshairs of the police and the mob, which forces the hands of all involved.

The Tourist is actually astonishingly well-paced and is actually enjoyable. While fans of thrillers might bemoan the attempt on the part of the writers to actually insert character into the movie, it works quite well. Ward is layered and Frank Tupelo is distinct, more so by the fact that he is fairly normal and not at all what one might expect of Johnny Depp these days. But what makes the movie worth seeing at least once is the fact that it is populated by characters who are fairly smart. The police in The Tourist are smart, hard-working and generally clever. They have tools at their disposal and they are equipped to make the tough decision. So, for example, when Acheson makes a call on letting Frank die because he recognizes that Ward has put the agents in a situation where Frank will act, even unwittingly, as a decoy for her, that is impressive. Moreover, the conversation Acheson has with his agents about jurisdiction while Frank is under fire is both realistic and something I've never seen in film before.

The acting in The Tourist is homogeneously wonderful. The film starts as Angelina Jolie's picture, but most of her role in the beginning is posturing. She is cool and collected and what separates Ward from the other vixens Jolie has played is that the viewer can see the wheels constantly turning in her head. We know from the outset that Ward is smart and that she is always looking for an angle. There is no doubt in the mind of the viewer that she is setting Frank up and she does it with a far more subtle use of her sex appeal than is customary when Jolie is cast. As a result, she has an impressive presence.

But from the moment Johnny Depp arrives on screen, the film is his. Depp plays first with just his eyes and he does that masterfully, but not in a way that is off-the-wall or even significant. While watching Frank, one feels like they are watching Frank, not Depp as Frank. The only real exception to this is when Depp is on a Venice rooftop running; there his physical movement is very familiar to those who have seen Johnny Depp in other things. But considering it is only one real slip the whole movie, it is very hard to complain.

The supporting performances are great as well. Paul Bettany gives a performance nothing like his role in Legion (click here for my review of that film!). He is cool, collected and above all smart here. And for his brief time on screen, Timothy Dalton is good as his boss. Sadly, Rufus Sewell's shot early in the movie gives away far too much to seasoned viewers and it makes it very easy to call the end of the movie.

While the film diverges for a strange dance scene and Ward's character is not entirely who she appears, the film works well for the most part.

Ultimately, The Tourist is paced well and is clever, but before too long, I was able to accurately call the end and that left me feeling somewhat disappointed. As well, the soundtrack, which as an abstract is wonderful, is too often intrusive. Even so, this is a fun film on a gut level and the acting is good all the way around. This truly is one of the most adult and interesting films in theaters now.

For other films featuring Johnny Depp, please visit my reviews of:
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Alice In Wonderland
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
Corpse Bride
Charlie And The Chocolate Factory
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
Blow
Dead Man
Edward Scissorhands

7/10

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

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




| | |

Dark City Alex Proyas' Existential Nightmare And Perfect Film!

The Good: Characters, acting, special effects
The Bad: Fails to satisfactorily answer the question "What's the point?"
The Basics: A must see! The bigger the screen the better! Only to be viewed in absolute darkness!

I used to think it was rare when Roger Ebert and I agree on a film (though that's changed quite a bit since I first wrote this review). I've never met the man, but reading his opinions or seeing his show, I've seldom found myself agreeing with his views on films. Dark City is an exception and I urge anyone considering seeing this film to read his review of Dark City.

Dark City is an existentialist's nightmare. It's a cinematographic masterpiece that does not rest simply on the strength of an amazing "look;" it is populated with numerous facets that defy film - especially genre - boundaries and limitations. While not strictly a special effects movie, this film uses pretty incredible special effects that still look great today to vividly create a distinct and nightmarish world. Dark City is the thinking person's The Matrix and it is ironic that so many people found Dark City AFTER The Matrix when Dark City was released the year before.

Dark City is the search for what makes a person human. Indeed, the experiment being conducted in Dark City is: if an individual is given memories of behaving a certain way, will they continue in that vein? The film explores what happens when John Murdock, suffering from amnesia, pieces together that he is a murderer through loads of circumstantial evidence. Not even possessing the memories of killing, he becomes frightened that he may not even know himself. In the process, he attempts to enlist the aid of his wife - whom he is unaware that he is estranged from - and a mad scientist caricature named Dr. Schreber. As he searches for his identity, Murdock is hunted by an empathetic and open-minded police detective and The Strangers.

The Strangers are essentially the scientists conducting the experiment and they are fascinating villains made more menacing by the fact that at least one of them is a child in form. Using the bodies of men who have died, the Strangers rule the city and warp reality around their own concepts of what makes humans tick in a quest to understand how memory and action interrelate. The veil for the quest to understand the human soul is brilliantly executed as writer-director Alex Proyas (who co-wrote this with Lem Dobbs and David S. Goyer) creates an association between memory and action.

John Murdock is an empathetic character. Lacking any real memories, he finds himself traumatized to learn that he might be a killer. Murdock's chase is wonderfully paralleled by the unraveling of a case for Inspector Frank Bumstead. Bumstead intellectually unfolds the details that Murdock instinctively unravels and the parallel stories work brilliantly together to create a vivid and memorable exploration of the human condition.

Part of what makes the characters so genius is the acting behind them. Richard O'Brien and Ian Richardson are menacing as the villainous Strangers Mr. Hand and Mr. Book. Both lend a creepy stiff posture to the enemy that makes us believe in their power without questioning. Similarly, Jennifer Connelly's very human and feminine performance serves as a perfect foil to the frantic performance given by the lead, Rufus Sewell. Connelly's Emma is quiet and trusting and expresses love so perfectly with her eyes and body language. Connelly has the incredible ability to emote and she uses it perfectly in this film.

William Hurt does an excellent job as the fastidious and efficient, though emotionally reserved Inspector Bumstead. Hurt's poker face is on the entire movie and he creates a memorable gumshoe that we wish we could see more of. Similarly, Kiefer Sutherland gives one of the best performances of his career. Wounded by The Strangers, Dr. Schreber walks with a severe limp and Sutherland sells us on his damage. Sutherland creates a series of defects, including a speech impediment that makes Dr. Schreber more ambiguous than villainous. His range is definitely pushed with this performance.

But much of the movie rests on the performance of Rufus Sewell. Sewell is brilliant as John Murdock and from the moment he awakens naked in the bathtub, we are hooked on his performance. His eyes connote a power and director Alex Proyas uses that intensity to sell the audience on the abilities Murdock develops. All in all this is the performance that should have made Sewell huge, he is that impressive in the role.

The weakness of Dark City is in its definition. In the opening scene we are informed that The Strangers and their ability to Tune has brought them to a point where they are seeking survival for their collective memories. When, in the film, they seem to discover that it is unclear what they have learned that they didn't know before. In fact, more than unlocking the key to what it is to be human (which begs the unanswered question "What about being human, being individual, makes them think that humanity is the key to saving their race?"), it seems they succeed in making a human more like them.

On DVD, there are two commentary tracks, as well as featurettes on the making of the film. There is also a “Director’s Cut” (review forthcoming) which was not nearly as good. The Blu-Ray disc has BOTH versions of the film and represents the greatest value for viewers.

This is a fantastic drama and a perfect film that overcomes its lingering questions through the strength of acting, character, special effects and available plot. That is to say, other than the way the film is set up, everything that we see that happens makes sense!

For a similar mind-blowing film, please check out my review of Inception!

10/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page!

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