Not Bending The World As Much As We Think, Why Her Is The Best Film Of The Year!

The Good: Excellent acting, Intriguing plot, Interesting characters
The Bad: Somewhat oppressive tone
The Basics: Her is a smart, clever film that has a lonely man bonding with his smartphone’s operating system and developing real love for the artificial life form.


A few days ago, my wife and I celebrated our four and three quarter year anniversary of our marriage. Even though it was an obscure anniversary, we continue to give gifts to one another and she actually surprised me by getting me the Blu-Ray of Where The Wild Things Are (reviewed here!). I was the only person I knew who actually liked the movie and my wife got it for me to connect me to a youthful sensibility I sometimes lack. So, I was actually primed to take in Spike Jonze’s latest film, Her . . . and I know that I will not be the only person I know who loves this film. Her is smart, quirky, and deep, instantly reminiscent of Jonze’s Being John Malkovich in tone and weirdness.

Her is released as Oscarbait, but while the studios might be marketing it toward award season, there is a sense of wry observation and universal loneliness that would have made it the film of the year regardless of when it was released. While films like Gravity (reviewed here!) have been leaving audiences marveled for the spectacle they bring to the big screen, it has lacked something beyond the confines of the story it tells. Spike Jonze has never been limited in that way and Her is no exception. Her tells a story set in a slightly sideways view of the world, but resonates with genuine human emotions and a story that is far less quirky (and much more insightful) than one might think from its plot.

Theodore is a professional transcriber for BeautifulWrittenLetters.com where he spends his days handwriting affectionate letters for customers. He is going through a rough divorce, though Catherine has clearly moved on from him, and he is lonely. Outside work, he spends time with his friend Amy, who spends her free time playing an online game where she earns points for being a good mother in the virtual world. Theodore’s own outlet with the virtual world or artificial intelligences comes when he activates his new operating system for his smartphone. Samantha talks to Theodore and he finds in the responsive program a companion more than a technological tool.

As Theodore asks his phone questions and responds to Samantha’s observations, he starts to bond with Samantha the way he would with an actual person. Theodore begins to become emotionally entangled with Samantha and that eases his loneliness. But as Theodore develops the relationship, he is forced to wrestle with the feelings he is has for Amy, Catherine, Samantha, and, perhaps most importantly, himself.

Her had a familiar quality to it; the emotional distance and sense of connection coming through technological devices is a similar plot to this year’s A Perfect Men (reviewed here!). The sense of familiarity also resonates for anyone who saw and understood A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (reviewed here!); Samantha in Her is treated like a life form in some very real ways. Interestingly, the elements that seem familiar combine to create something that is remarkable fresh.

The thing is, Her seems audacious and original in its plotting and set-up, but Spike Jonze drives the movie with a character who is easy to empathize with and a tone that is universal (though hardly pleasant). Theodore seems to meet the stereotype of being a smart man who is socially or emotionally disconnected, with limited ability to express the depths of his feelings. While Jonze created yet another smart character who clearly feels, he is put on the spot to define his emotions and falls down. Her might use a technological conceit, but it explores a complicated series of emotions and has something to say about relationships that is seldom brought to the screen with such realism.

While there are moments that get bogged down in the oppressive tone inherent to loneliness, Her succeeds because it balances the loneliness with the excitement of the discovery that comes with a new relationship. While there is a somewhat bipolar nature to the plot, the overall cinematic experience is surprisingly enjoyable.

A lot of the credit for the success of Her goes to Joaquin Phoenix. While I have never been a fan of Phoenix’s works, in Her he performs with an incredible range of emotions that is uncommon for him. Phoenix plays the quiet loneliness of Theodore’s initial character exceptionally well, but it is when he transforms into a bright-eyed, eager man outside his home that Phoenix gives us something completely new. I cannot recall a time when I’ve seen Phoenix on screen smiling and portraying a truly vibrant human being.

In a similar fashion, Amy Adams’s role in Her is unlike others she has had. More than just appearing with disheveled hair, Adams uses her time on the screen to play a type of obsession she has not played in her other works (at least none I have ever seen).

Her has a touching human message and it is delivered expertly in a way that makes it a film bound to stand the tests of time.

For other works featuring Olivia Wilde, please check out my reviews of:
The Incredible Burt Wonderstone
The Words
People Like Us
In Time
Butter
The Change-Up
Cowboys And Aliens
Tron: Legacy
The Next Three Days
Year One
House, M.D. - Season Four

9/10

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

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

Losing The Translation To Attempts At Wittiness, Adaptation. Fizzles.

The Good: Decent acting, Good opening
The Bad: Degenerates into a scholarly experiment, Pacing, Lack of sensible character development, Utter lack of plot
The Basics: Adaptation. begins as a slow story about a ridiculously nervous screenwriter and degenerates into a disappointing scholarly exercise even a person with a comparative literature major couldn't enjoy.


As a novelist, I am always interested in what is new and different. I went into Adaptation. with high hopes and reasonable expectations. I had enjoyed Being John Malkovich and I found the previews to Adaptation. compelling. That said, I was horribly disappointed.

Opening with Charlie Kaufman, who actually did write the film Adaptation., the fictional character is pushed aside on the set of his own film and he is portrayed instantly though his own voiceover as a loser. Charlie then goes on to get the film rights to the book "The Orchid Thief" and struggles with making what he finds a great novel into an even remotely workable film. The narrative bounces between Kaufman's agonizing attempts to write the film while his twin brother Donald makes a very "Hollywood" horror script and the past where Susan Orlean researches and writes "The Orchid Thief." Orlean is led by John Laroche, a Florida redneck who is an expert on orchids.

Adaptation. does very well in the beginning, despite some serious pacing problems. While the film focuses on the difficulty of translating a book about ideas and emotions into a film - i.e. not adding characters and/or attempting to have contrived plot devices - it works well. Even as Susan works on writing some of the compelling lines Charlie gets hooked on, the narrative flows. In the beginning of the film, Adaptation. is a movie about nothing about writing a film about nothing.

And it's slow. It's dreadfully slow, in fact. That works for a little while, when focusing on Charlie, but not when the attention shifts to Susan and John. Alas, the pace does not pick up in those moments.

Had the film remained a film about nothing, that could have been fine. It could have endured as a film about the struggle to write and even been intriguing to non-writers.

Unfortunately, about halfway through the film, Adaptation. becomes obsessed with the conventions of movie-making and all of the cliches and stereotypes of the typical Hollywood film. It is at this point in the movie that Adaptation. surrenders all of its reasonable and plausible premises and degenerates into what it hates. That is, Kaufman becomes disappointed with the conventions of writing a film personified in Robert McKee. These conventions are such things as the importance of plot, the lack of voiceovers and the "standards" like the car chase, the moral at the end, and the use of a popular song in a film.

Adaptation. seeks to make a satire of these conventions in the latter half of the film and as a result it becomes both snobby and ridiculous. In attempting to mock the establishment, Adaptation. sinks into it, becoming the worst cliche of all. This film is roughly equivalent to the upper class intellectual who despises sports in their social circles and then sneaks away to play football (note: not squash) on the weekends. It's hypocritical when it attempts to be clever and ultimately this film lets us down by sacrificing the characters and ideals of the beginning for the quick fix the end provides.

The only redeeming aspect of this film is the acting. Nicolas Cage plays Charlie wonderfully. Cage also plays the somewhat pointless Donald well and quite differently. Cage is a fine actor here. Meryl Streep and Tilda Swinton are both wonderful as Susan and Valerie. The scene stealer is Chris Cooper, who plays John Laroche. Cooper deserved the Golden Globe Award he won last week for playing Laroche. Fans of "American Beauty" will remember Cooper as the militant marine next door, Colonel Fitts. Here he plays a very different, far more alive character and he does it quite well.

Unfortunately, even the acting cannot save this film. What it tries to mock pretentiously, it becomes in the last act. So even when we recognize that it is mocking the phenomenon of the stylized film industry, when drugs and guns come into play, it tries to play it seriously and it is impossible for the viewer to accept the abrupt about face. It results in the film ceasing to mock bad films and it instead becomes one.

Ultimately, this is a terribly slow film. I mean dreadfully. I felt like the film was at least three and a half hours long and was shocked to learn that it was, in actuality 114 minutes. And keep in mind, I was looking forward to this film.

For other reality-bending films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Inception
Sucker Punch

3/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Reviews Index Page by clicking here!

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

Relationships Are Still Complicated Where The Wild Things Are!

The Good: Imaginative, Well-acted, Special effects, General level of character
The Bad: Intrusive soundtrack, Pacing
The Basics: Imaginative and fun, Where The Wild Things Are is a big-screen triumph of imagination over reality!


It is a rare thing that I go into a movie aimed toward children and I like it, much less like it more than my wife. In fact, it was a real stretch for me to even go and watch Hotel For Dogs and it was a shock to both of us when I enjoyed it. There is a part of me that suspects I enjoyed it a little bit more than I ordinarily would because I was with her and it was one of our first dates. The same cannot be said for Where The Wild Things Are. In this case, we went to a screening and despite the pacing issues, I found I enjoyed the movie a great deal more than my wife did.

Where The Wild Things Are is based upon the classic children's book by the same title. Author Maurice Sendak let director Spike Jonze and his co-author David Eggers have generally free reign with the book, but given that it has been years since I have read the picture book upon which this is based, I shall do no comparison. After all, the original book was not terribly long and if it were presented on the screen as a literal translation of the book, it would only be a short. As it is, interviews with Sendak confirm that he is quite pleased with how Jonze both kept the flavor of his story alive in this film as well as made a work that was distinctly his own. This bodes well for the purists and it worked well for the film.

Max is an imaginative boy who dresses up in a wolf costume regularly, builds forts and plays enthusiastically with his classmates. Still, he is nervous about the eventual demise of the sun and he is neglected by his older sister. After getting into a snowball fight with his sister, Claire, and her friends, an event which leads to the destruction of his igloo and him being trapped in the cold, wet snow, Max trashes her room and when his mother finally arrives home, they clean it up together. His overworked mother, though, tries to discipline Max when the boy wants attention while she is on a date. Max bites her and runs off into the night, stealing a boat and sailing for two nights and a day. He ends up at an island occupied by giant, hairy (or feathered) monsters and in talking his way out of being eaten, he manages to convince them that he is a king.

Bonding with Carol, Max promises to lead the monsters well and keep sadness at bay, a promise that is made difficult by the fact that Carol's partner/sister (she's referred to as family, but they act like romantic partners) KW is leaving the tribe. After a prolonged romp through the forest with much running, jumping and playing, Carol shows Max his model of the island kingdom and Max and the group begin building an immense fort for them to live in. As construction progresses, Judith's jealousy, Alexander's insecurity and the apparent favoritism between Max and Carol strains the group and Max finds living up to his promise a near impossible task.

Where The Wild Things Are features some rather obvious (to adults) morals, but what makes it so worthwhile for all audiences is that it realistically and imaginatively presents a childlike sense of play. Even though adults who go (willingly or unwillingly) to see the film and are likely to know pretty much off the bat how the plot will collapse around Max once he starts embellishing his story, what they are likely to enjoy is the truly free-spirited presentation of youthful enjoyment of life. As we get older and our lives are made more complicated, we tend to lose the simple joy of running, jumping and playing. The illustration of those childlike activities is enthusiastically presented in this film and as a result, it is surprisingly engaging for adults.

The other aspect most likely to be lost on children who go to see Where The Wild Things Are is the adult sense of emotional interaction of the characters. Carol and KW have a complicated relationship and Jonze does an excellent job of giving each of the "monsters" a psychological quirk. Alexander is emotionally needy, Ira gets his validation from being a good partner to the pessimistic Judith, Douglas works hard to win Carol's approval, and KW wants very much to be free and to grow, away from her family. All of them dutifully rally around Max when he arrives, but Max - being a child - is largely unsuited to negotiate their adult emotions and adult relationships. As a result, he soon finds himself as much of an alien in his new island kingdom as he was back home. This is likely to leave children who see the movie as confused as Max is.

What they are not likely to be confused by is the sense of visual wonder the movie induces. From the moment Max arrives on the island to find Carol smashing the huts of the monsters, there is a pretty constant sense of movement. As well, there is a surreal combination of the real - Max, the forest, the boat - and what the viewer knows to be the unreal (the "monsters," the stick fort). Director Spike Jonze and his team work to create a flawlessly real world with a visual sensibility that is seamless. The only truly annoying special effect in this film is the soundtrack, which is made up frequently of songs that sound like children playing or chanting and it becomes overbearing at points, distracting from the visual wonder and sense of reality of the island world.

What is truly extraordinary is the work done on creating the costumes of the "monsters." First, each one is distinctive and the viewer never needs more than a glance to know which character they are looking at. As well, there is a strong sense of character to each one of Max's subjects. So, for example, Judith's face is remarkably well articulated and whomever did the work on her deserves real kudos. More than any of the other "monsters," Judith is a fully-realized character in her mannerisms as well as line deliveries. In addition to emoting with her eyes and mouth (I kid not about the eyes, it was actually incredible), Judith has a pretty extraordinary sense of body language as a strangely depressed horned beast. Despite the fact that some of the other characters - most notably Ira - are not as well-articulated, the viewer never feels like they are watching a kid interact with giant puppets. The characters are just that and not since Yoda first appeared on the screen has there been so little need for suspension of disbelief to accept a set of puppets as real live characters.

As far as the vocal talents go, the film is ruled by James Gandolfini as Carol and Lauren Ambrose as KW. Ambrose, possibly best known for her work on Six Feet Under (reviewed here!) turns out to be an exceptional voice actress, immediately creating a character with a sweetness and a sadness to her that is powerful. Ambrose makes KW a thoughtful character with just her voice when she tries to express to Max her desire to explore and grow and her feeling that she cannot necessarily do that with her "family." Even so, she manages to infuse a sense of reality and deeper emotions into every one of her deliveries and this is an incredible feat. Gandolfini, similarly, alternates between being authoritative and hurt and Carol is an easily likable character as a result. While Gandolfini gets the most voicetime as Carol, Ambrose's performance still upstages his sometimes over-the-top deliveries.

But the equal surprise for serious moviegoers will be the quality of acting from Max Records. Records, who plays Max, is essentially a child playing a child, which seems like it ought not to be a stretch for him. In that regard, the acting is unremarkable, as Records looks like he is having a good time as he runs, throws snowballs or plays. The moments that earn him true accolades (or one hopes they will) are the moments when Max has to interact with the giant muppets that surround him and treat them as utterly real. There is never a moment in Where The Wild Things Are where Max Records presents even a flicker of the reality where he is acting opposite giant puppets. Instead, his complete investment in the fictional world makes it almost impossible for the viewer to not be similarly invested.

Ultimately, outside the soundtrack, the only real problem with Where The Wild Things Are is the pacing. The film starts engagingly enough with Max chasing a little dog, but then takes a while to get to the island and once there there is a similar sense of "where is this going and when will it get there" that the viewer feels. While it is fun to watch and there are deeper themes and statements being made on the power of human emotions, Where The Wild Things Are takes a while to get around to it and that might frustrate both impatient adults and children with short attention spans.

All in all, this is a surprisingly wonderful movie for adults and children alike!

For other fantasy films, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Labyrinth
The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
Alice In Wonderland

8/10

For other movie reviews, please click here to visit my index page for a nice, organized listing of all I have written!

© 2011, 2010, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |