Sarah Polley Is Too Concerned With Making An Independent Film To Make Take This Waltz Good.

The Good: One or two lines, Direction, Moments of performance
The Bad: Predictable plot, Indie look/feel, Mundane characters that failed to connect
The Basics: An archetypal indie temptation drama, Take This Waltz has no real spark or zest to it.


For the sake of this argument, I want to posit that there are, essentially, two types of independent films. The first style of indie film is a movie that the Hollywood system ignores and/or is put together by creative forces who simply do not have the resources and connections to get the film made by a professional studio. Artists or simply tenacious enough with their vision, those people go ahead and make the film they wanted to anyway. I have a lot of respect for that type of artistry, even though the quality is usually less than what a polished, studio-made film would be. The other type of independent film, it seems, is the type of low-budget movie written/directed/starred in by established people in the entertainment industry who want to make something “different” for the purpose of making their own independent film. It’s the difference between people who strive to make the best film possible vs. people who set out to make something deliberately contrarian (or with the appearance of being off the beaten path). I am discovering that I have a lot less respect for the latter style of independent film, not because I am against artistic freedom, but rather because so very many of the independent films made and populated by established Hollywood talents seem so similar. They are most often moody dramas, with the appearance of intimacy, wrestling with an issue that seems vastly overblown, and nine times out of ten features at least one significant shot of the protagonist, in transit, backlit. I swear, this style of independent film exists almost entirely for Oscarbait, film festivals, and so the talents involved can tell their Hollywood friends about the small, independent film they are working on. There is a whole masturbatory feel to the odd formulaic tendencies surrounding this style of independent film.

I mention this all at the outset of my review of Take This Waltz, a film I knew absolutely nothing about before sitting down to watch it today, because this is exactly the type of independent that looks and feels like an independent film (of the second style). I realized this when, very early in the movie, I actually said aloud to myself, “The writer is working so hard here to make these lines so witty that she’s not actually making characters, just lines.” Writer and director Sarah Polley, who I recall enjoying in Go (reviewed here!) seems so determined to make a quirky, non-Hollywood film that she instead makes the archetypal indie film, but without any zest, originality, or anything truly new or special. Take This Waltz combines the worst elements of an independent film with the most banal Hollywood traditions.

Meeting while on vacation, Margot and Daniel end up on a plane sitting next to one another and striking up a surprisingly intimate conversation. Margot admits to Daniel that she essentially scams the airports to get transit through them in a wheelchair because of her fear of missing a connection. Their vacation relationship (as it is) is complicated when they share a cab and realize they actually live across the street from one another. Margot returns to her seasoned marriage with Lou, a chicken cookbook writer, but finds herself watching out the window for Daniel, who runs a rickshaw around Los Angeles.

Daniel follows Margot to her swim exercise class, they go out for a martini, and they flirt. Margot tries to resist her obvious attraction for Daniel, while she starts to articulate the distance she feels from Lou. The more time they spend together, the more interested they become in one another and the more difficult it is for them to stay apart.

First, to contradict myself very slightly, I am not at all against cleverness. I like clever, but sometimes it works to the detriment of the work in question. In Take This Waltz the most clever the film actually gets is when the young ladies at Margot’s swim class are talking about relationships and the older women acknowledge the truth that every new relationship gets old. I like that. Old and seasoned is not inherently bad; nothing lasts unknown and exciting forever. If it works, it becomes familiar. Take That Waltz expresses that remarkably well. Also, the “long term joke” of Lou pouring cold water on Margot while she is in the shower every day is surprisingly delightful and well-executed.

Unfortunately, so much of the rest of the film is banal and obvious. The conflict is an overblown one that is predicated on the idea that women and men cannot form a friendship without it being about possessing romantic tension. Margot and Daniel have a conversation and it transitions pretty immediately from annoyance to sexual tension and that felt contrived. The conflict itself, though, is one that is blown out of proportion: people who don’t want to have affairs, don’t. It is, actually, just that simple. Love is work, but passion fades and the people who want real love who want monogamous relationships have them. Movies like Take This Waltz try to make it into a big, inevitable conflict, but it seldom actually is for the people who buy the first premise.

Polley also uses the utterly unsurprising Hollywood conceit that puts the unsatisfied woman suddenly falling for – and drawing the attention of – perhaps the best looking man on the face of the planet. Luke Kirby, who plays Daniel, has a distinctly obvious Hollywood good look to him and the fact that he is stealing Michelle Williams’s character away from Seth Rogen feels far less interesting than the opposite way might have been.

So, that leaves the acting. Independent films are more often than not the chance for established actors to play roles that stretch their talents. Take This Waltz fails to do that. Michelle Williams is known for heavily dramatic, independent roles, so her performance of Margot is unsurprising for her talents. While this might seem like Sarah Silverman’s big acting challenge – she plays Lou’s alcoholic sister, Geraldine – she still plays the role in a familiar way. When Geraldine has a party to celebrate her sobriety, the voice is very much Sarah Silverman’s when she gives a toast. Having seen Silverman in dramatic roles, like in Peep World (reviewed here!), the role of Geraldine does not extend her range at all. Even Seth Rogen seems to be playing more to his strengths as Lou. That said, when Lou confronts Margot and Rogen gets red-faced with anger and frustration, his physical performance is arguably the most nuanced of his career and in that way, Rogen is successful at using Take This Waltz to showcase something new.

To her credit, Sarah Polley directs Take This Waltz well, which is a nice change from the last indie film I saw - Like Crazy (reviewed here!), which was just clunky and cut horribly – but even with that, she failed to engage the viewer. Take This Waltz is a stiflingly familiar marital disintegration/temptation film that fails to pop or present anything truly original, or even interesting.

For other works with Michelle Williams, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Dawson’s Creek - Season 1
Brokeback Mountain
Shutter Island
My Week With Marilyn

3/10

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

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

Go Is Not A Completely Dumb Teen Movie!

The Good: Surprisingly well put together, Decent acting, Lines of dialog
The Bad: Annoying, idiotic characters, Low opinion of youth culture
The Basics: If you want to watch young people use drugs, hang out, get into pointless chases and otherwise use bad judgment, Go is the perfect film for you.


"Teensploitation" is a word that has recently made it into the dictionary. It refers to any film or work that exploits young people as a crucial element of selling the movie, television show or lip gloss. Basically, it is the name for the whole genre of movies that tries to explore what being a young person is. It's a weird word and I am surprised it made it into the dictionary; it seems like more of a fad than a word with any real staying power. Nevertheless, there it is and I thought of the word as I sat down to watch the DVD of Go.

I honestly did not have high expectations for this movie. When I watch it again, which I will, I am bound to watch it with higher expectations than I had the first time around. Go is the teensploitation version of Pulp Fiction.

Told in three parts, in roughly chronological order, this is the story of three groups of people and their adventures over the course of a single night and how they all come together. It is the story of Ronna, who is about to be evicted from her apartment, so she goes along with a plan to score some ecstasy for some strangers and discovers that she can make a killing selling chewable aspirin and diet pills to posers at a rave. It is the story of Simon, a drug dealer who takes off for Las Vegas for a night and ends up on the run after putting his hands on a stripper. It is the story of Adam and Zack, a pair of gay actors who have ended up at the mercy of a police officer named Burke, who uses the two to set up Simon and instead end up setting up Ronna.

The three stories come together when Ronna is almost killed at the rave, Simon heads back to Todd's (his supplier) house to find Todd selling him out and Adam and Zack discovering they are cheating on one another with the same man. All with hilarious consequences.

Okay, the consequences are not hilarious. In fact, it is troubling how downright stupid just about every character in this movie is. Even the goody-goody Claire uses drugs, so it's hard to find real empathy in any of these characters. They are all weak-willed or flat out stupid and John August (the writer) and Doug Liman (the director) have a very low opinion of youth and their level of judgment. Claire, who seems intelligent and morally-upstanding at the beginning, allows herself to be used as collateral to Todd, uses speed, and ultimately uses her wits to arrange the almost moronic - though funny - resolution of the dilemma of Simon.

Simon is a flat-out idiot and it is problematic that so much time is spent on his character. He is not interesting to watch, yet a third of the film - at least - is his story. Simon is a loser drug dealer and it is hard to feel any empathy for his buffoonishness. Even worse, on the trip to Vegas, he is accompanied by Tiny (in a baffling element, Breckin Meyer, who played Tiny is one of the top-billed credited actors of this movie!) and Singh who are such worthless, pointless characters that they are dispatched at the earliest possible moment.

Indeed, throughout the Simon section of the movie, it is Taye Diggs' character Marcus that steals the scenes. He is interesting, reasonably intelligent and it is a shame that he was not worked into the script better. In fact, he is such a cool character, one wonders why he is hanging around such losers as Simon and Tiny. As well, seeing more of Marcus and his reactions to the hicks he runs into in Vegas would have given the movie Go a bit more depth and genuine character.

Finally, the Adam and Zack portion of the movie is interesting, but not enough to resolve the film. In fact, after their altercations with Burke and their hunt for Jimmy, their mutual lover, they disappear and the movie becomes about tying it all together. That is done by using Claire and Todd, but it is done without giving the pair a full section of their own (as Ronna, Simon and Adam and Zack are given).

What makes the film even remotely viewable is the dialog and the acting. The dialog is often funny. In fact, listening to the posers Ronna sells fake drugs to is funny as are Ronna's exploiting others the way she is exploited when she goes to get the drugs from Todd. There is a lot that is funny and the lines are well delivered.

The cast is pretty impressive. Sarah Polley does a good job of getting the viewers into the world with her strange, almost bland performance of Ronna. Jay Mohr and Scott Wolf are energetic as Zack and Adam. Katie Holmes, cute as ever, plays Claire with an interesting combination of coyness, intelligence and reason, which fails only in the writing of the character. And Timothy Olyphant portrays Todd with a wonderful mix of menace and style that makes the drug supplier one of the more interesting and watchable characters in the piece.

The film, however, is stolen by two actors: Taye Diggs and William Fichtner. Diggs plays Marcus as cool and levelheaded. He uses his limited time on screen to create a sage character that is interesting and slick. He plays the role with a looseness that is cool and he emanates an air of style. He brings a real sense of professionalism and character to the middle portion of the movie.

It is ironic, then, that in a teensploitation movie, the notable actor would be William Fichtner, who was in his forties when the movie was made. Fichtner plays Burke and he makes the role into something that is uncomfortably sleazy. Fichtner makes Burke a potential menace to Adam and Zack with leering and a wonderful control of eye movements and body language. He is a master and when his character's motives are revealed, the build-up that Fichtner has created using his tone, body language and movement, the result is one of the funniest in the work.

But, in the end, Go is probably not worth your time. Why? None of the characters are good. I am a person who loves characters who live in shades of gray or are outright evil. The problem here is there is no reference point, they are all gray and they create a piece that is more murky than interesting. None of the characters are completely likable and as a result, much of the movie hinges on individual lines and fails to come together as a piece worth repeated viewings.

The plus side? If you are into teensploitation, this gives you pretty much everything you might want, assuming you figure all teens use drugs and are incapable of ever using good judgment. And the DVD has a surprising number of extras for such a mediocre movie.

For other works with William Fitchner, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Date Night
The Dark Knight
Invasion
Ultraviolet
Mr. And Mrs. Smith
Crash

6.5/10

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

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Master Plays A Fairy Tale Worth Returning To With The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen!

The Good: Excellent direction, Great acting, Interesting characters
The Bad: Very old plot, Some pacing and editing issues
The Basics: With an phenomenal cast and great characters, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen takes the viewer on a ride that reminds us of the power of imagination.


Terry Gilliam, the co-writer and director of Brazil, is a cinematic genius. He has a brilliance to him that is unmatched, even in this day where computer generated special effects can make magic in the most marvelous sense. Brazil is, quite possibly, the best film of all time, enduring even now. Terry Gilliam comes with a great deal of street credibility in my book. It would take a lot for me to not give a new Terry Gilliam movie a chance (even after seeing Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas). It was with great pleasure that I sat down to watch The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen, a fairy-tale that Gilliam has described in press as a final act to a story told by viewing Time Bandits, Brazil, and The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen collectively.

This is a distinctive Terry Gilliam picture and it is somewhat disappointing that even on DVD it does not get much in the way of special attention. There is no special edition, no commentary, no bonuses outside foreign language subtitles, biographies of Gilliam and Eric Idle and the theatrical trailer for the movie.

What is this, then?

The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen is essentially a fairy tale. As a proud city falls under siege of the Sultan during the Age of Reason, a legendary figure from the past named Baron Munchausen appears to contradict the myths about himself. Claiming only he may end the siege, Munchausen reveals the origins of the war as one of his many adventures. Surrounded by the fastest human alive, Berthold, and an array of almost superhuman comrades, Munchausen reveals that the Sultan's discontent is over a trick Munchausen pulled on him decades ago.

At the urgings of a local girl, Sally, Munchausen vows to save the city by reuniting with his old group and liberating the people from the Sultan's siege. Munchausen and Sally then head off to find Berthold, the exceptionally strong Albrecht, the keen-eared, magnificently winded Gustavus and the sharp-eyed Adolphus. Their quest takes them to the moon, the center of a volcano, and the ends of the earth and they meet impressive figures along the way, including gods and goddesses, giants and killer fish.

At the end of the day, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen is about reuniting old comrades (in the literal sense) and the importance of elders passing on history and myth and imagination to the youth (in the metaphorical). This movie works very well when viewed in its metaphorical context, because otherwise, it's pretty dull. I mean, a story about an old man looking for his friends is not exactly a killer great plot. Either he finds them or he does not, either the city is saved or it falls, plot-wise, this movie is a bit of a lightweight.

Terry Gilliam (and co-writer Charles McKeown, who also stars in the movie as Adolphus) compensate for the weak plot with an exceptionally interesting assortment of characters. These are intriguing individuals who populate Gilliam's world and Gilliam and McKeown do not disappoint in keeping the movie moving through interesting creatures, like the man on the moon with the detachable head. With an almost Swiftian view of the Age of Reason, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen reinvigorates the viewer with the sense that imagination makes the extraordinary possible. Indeed, there are few points in the fantastic story where the viewer sits up and says "That's impossible," so engrossing are the characters.

What does pull the viewer out from time to time are a series of rough edits, especially in the latter half of the movie and during the action sequences. There are several cuts between various camera angles and perspectives that are very sharp, problematically cut together. Some moments felt like they were truncated, as if there was not enough material to get the ideal take and the director was forced to go with what he had. Lacking a commentary track, it's difficult to say what was going on.

That said, the actors give astounding performances. It's pleasant to see Uma Thurmond in one of her earlier roles and Jonathan Pryce steals his scenes playing Horatio Jackson as an antithesis to his heroic Sam Lowry from Brazil. Peter Jeffrey is great as the Sultan as well.

But the film turns on two performances. The first is Sarah Polley. Polley plays Sally, the defiant girl who believes in Baron Munchausen and his adventures and steals away with the Baron to help him find his friends. Her youthful rejection of reason for imagination suggests there is a spark in each of us to change the world. Polley brings that forth in a way that only a child actress can; by being an actual child and not an older person playing a youth or some computer-generated child, Polley comes across as perfectly natural and completely genuine. She "reads" as a real person in a way that makes her character utterly credible.

The other pivotal performance is that of John Neville, who plays Baron Munchausen. Neville is magnificent as Munchausen, portraying the hero with alternating senility and wisdom, seamlessly taking the character from confident to cynical to childlike to mentor. Neville has an impressive dignity to him that he brought to the character of Munchausen, making the character's journey one told not only in lines but in subtle voice modulation and rigid posture. Neville makes Munchausen riveting. Without an actor of John Neville's caliber and character, The Adventures Of Baron Munchausen would have been sunk.

Who will like this movie? Anyone who needs a shot in the arm of imagination, a reminder of the importance of teaching children and thinking outside the box. This is ideal for those who want to be reminded that a single person can change the world (but for those who do not want to invest the time or money on Babylon 5). It won't be enjoyed by those who have lost all sense of delight in the absurd or those who are unable to make leaps of fancy.

It is a shame, for they are the people who need this movie the most.

For other films by Terry Gilliam, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Tideland
12 Monkeys
Brazil

6.5/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Film Review Index Page by clicking here!

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |