Movie Review: A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol (2009) 

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

Written by Robert Zemeckis 

Starring Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright, Carey Elwes

Release Date November 6th, 2009 

Published November 5th, 2009

Words associated with Robert Zemeckis's endeavor into CGI, Motion Capture and Digital 3D: Groundbreaking, lifelike, extraordinary, creepy, scary, goofy, rubbery. Opinions have varied on the success of the now three films that Mr. Zemeckis has crafted with his unique technical skills and toys. The Polar Express was magical in story but creepy in rendering. Beowulf was masterful in many technical aspects and still skin-crawlingly awkward in others. Now comes A Christmas Carol and again opinions vary.

Charles Dickens' legendary tale of skinflint turned softy Ebenezer Scrooge is among the most famous holiday tales ever told. There are numerous adaptations featuring as varied a group of players as Kelsey Grammar, Bill Murray even the Muppets who have given life to Scrooge over the years since Dickens popularized the concept of karmic retribution for lack of being charitable. Disney turned him into a duck. Children, even today, can recite the basics of the story from memory.

On Christmas Day the miserly Ebenezer Scrooge is visited by the ghost of his late business partner Jakob Marley. He is told that he will be visited by three ghosts. Indeed, haunted he is by the ghosts Christmas past, present and future. Each offers a lesson to Scrooge that if he does not change his miserly ways he will not be mourned by anyone, he will die penniless and alone. Reformed by this experience, Scrooge buys a giant Christmas goose for his longtime, terribly put upon assistant, Bob Cratchit and pays the medical bills of Bob's son Tiny Tim. Scrooge also, finally, attends the Christmas of his loving, kind nephew Fred. 

Dickens' tale is brilliant in its simplicity. But, why bring A Christmas Carol back again? According to Director Zemeckis it was one of his favorite stories of all time. All well and good but does his love justify yet another take on this oft told tale? No, frankly. Especially since Zemeckis brings no new insights to the story. Jim Carrey's Scrooge is faithful to a fault and leaves one to wonder: who hires Jim Carrey and binds him to a character so thoroughly that no wacky schtick can escape?

There is hardly a whisper of whimsy or moment of mugging mirth. Why bother hooking Carrey's well known face up to all that mo-cap technology when you have restrained him so tightly to such a dark, draconian character. Even in Scrooge's happy turn in the end Carrey remains restrained, allowing only for a smile and a brief jig. No actor wants to be shackled to a persona but Jim Carrey is JIM CARREY, his persona overwhelms the notion that he can simply be plugged into a character and have audiences simply accept a straightforward, non Carrey-like performance. 

A Christmas Tale lacks life or any form of whimsy whatsoever and that is not something that works for an animated film the animated spirit is greatly lacking. The one thing it seems that Robert Zemeckis has brought to A Christmas Carol is a dark vision of Dickens' dark words. Dickens' imagery has always been of the nightmare variety, this version of A Christmas Carol captures that vision with frightful faith. I would warn against taking children younger than 13 to this film.

That makes this version of A Christmas Carol more of an adult feature and that would seem to defeat the purpose of the adaptation and animation. This should be a story for kids but parents who take young kids will only come away with frightened youngsters. Sure, their is the happy ending to salve the wounds but many parents and kids will not make it that far.

Far too scary for young children and too well worn for adults, this version of A Christmas Carol seems at a loss to justify its existence. Why another take on this story? Was it just an exercise of the technology? A chance to be faithful to the dark images of Dickens that many adaptations had softened? I cannot tell you and I wonder if Mr. Zemeckis could either.

Movie Review: Vanity Fair

Vanity Fair (2004) 

Directed by Mira Nair

Written by Julian Fellowes

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Eileen Atkins, Jim Broadbent, Gabriel Byrne, Romola Garai, Bob Hoskins

Release Date September 1st, 2004 

Published September 1st, 2004 

In its day, William Makepeace Thackeray's Vanity Fair, written in 1847, was a witty and scathing rebuke of the British society in which it was set. In the ensuing 157 years, even as society in Britain and elsewhere has changed, the wit of Thackeray's words has remained and Hollywood has taken notice more than once. First adapted in 1935 in the very first film ever in Technicolor, Thackeray's novel was renamed for its heroine Becky Sharp and won an Oscar nomination for star Miriam Hopkins.

The book found its greatest exposure in the mini-series format where it has been adapted three times. Because of the large number of characters, subplots, and endlessly witty dialogue exchanges the mini-series seems to be the truly ideal format for this story. A perfect example of that is the latest film adaptation of Vanity Fair by Mira Nair and Oscar-nominated screenwriter Julian Fellowes which evokes the images of the story but has no time for the depth and breadth of it.

Reese Witherspoon takes on the difficult role of Becky Sharp, the razor tongued social climber who in the book is not the most sympathetic creature. In the film, after a little back story about how Becky was the orphaned daughter of a starving artist sent to live and work in a finishing school, we find Becky taking advantage of the one friend she has made in her life Amelia Sedley (Romola Garai). In this scene at least Becky seems genuine, if a bit devilish towards her ex-schoolmates and teachers.

Becky is leaving the school to join Amelia and her family for a week before she begins life as a governess for Sit Pitt Crawley (Bob Hoskins). In the week with Amelia's family, Becky hopes to take advantage of her friend’s kindness and find herself a way into high society. Becky's chance opens up when Amelia's brother Jos returns from his military post in India. Jos is shy, overweight and easily mislead, the perfect patsy for Becky who would marry anyone to get into high society.

Unfortunately for Becky, Amelia's fiancé George Osbourne (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) is far savvier than Jos and helps the fat man see through Becky's scheming. With no fiancé to help her climb the social ladder, Becky is off to the home of Sir Pitt Crawley where a whole new scheme must begin. It doesn't take someone of Becky's street smarts long to insinuate herself into an important position in the Crawley household. She makes an especially strong impression on the most important Crawley, Sir Pitt's sister Miss Crawley (Eileen Atkins) the one with all of the family's money.

Miss Crawley and Becky are fast friends as both have a quick and savage wit. Miss Crawley claims to detest the class system and any system that would place her dull witted clan ahead of someone like Becky simply because of breeding. However Miss Crawley's true feelings are tested after Becky elopes with Sir Pitt's youngest son Rawdon (James Purefoy) who was Miss Crawley's favorite and the one most likely to inherit the family fortune.

This is a lot of plot and I have not yet mentioned Rhys Ifans as Major Dobbin and Gabriel Byrne as Steyne both of whom are pivotal in the book but get a bit of a short shrift due the films 2 hrs 17 min. runtime. Even the plot I have already described is embellished a bit on my part from what I know from reading the book. Having read it, I can fill in the gaps that Ms. Nair and Mr. Fellowes rush over in order to get a more salable runtime.

Clearly there was some sort of studio mandate on runtime because there is simply no other way to make sense of the cuts made by the talented director and writer. People who have not read the book will often be left wondering what just happened as the plot points are introduced and left behind in mere moments as the narrative jumps ahead years in leaps and bounds. Important plots about deaths, births and cross-continental moves are left on the cutting room floor leaving the audience unsatisfied, with little to no catharsis or consideration.

To be fair Thackeray wasn't much interested in catharsis as he was in the witty, sexy, and devilishly clever banter of his characters, especially Becky Sharp. At the very least in the book, you have Thackeray as narrator offering some commentary on these life-changing events, usually with a very witty aside. There again points to another problem with the film, it lacks Thackeray's voice which is the books true source of humor. Like the cattiest of gossips, Thackeray's narration let us inside the thoughts of each character and spelled out important motivations.

The filmmakers rely heavily on their actors to deliver the characters inner lives and while this is a talented group of actors who communicate insight, intelligence, and humor the audience members aren't mind readers and the filmmakers can't just assume people will get it. That is unless you read the book then maybe you do get it. Maybe the film’s biggest issue is the way Thackeray's biting satire has been softened to appeal to a more mainstream audience.

That appeal to the mainstream extends to the casting of Reese Witherspoon as Becky Sharp. Ms. Witherspoon is a terrific actress who has the perfect face to play Becky Sharp, with that devilish glint in her deep-set eyes and that hint of a snarl in her smile she evoked my vision of Becky. The problem is her star power and presence overwhelms the lesser-known cast members that surround her. In scenes where the film shoehorns in the subplots about Romola Garai's Amelia or Rhys Ifans as Dobbin we are left wondering where is Becky. Also to accommodate someone of Ms. Witherspoon's obvious likeability, many of Becky's sharp edges have been softened so as not to offend her fanbase.

The only cast member that is able to make a real impression outside of Ms. Witherspoon is Eileen Atkins as Miss Crawley, probably because she is the only character other than Becky allowed to employ Mr. Thackeray's wit. Other characters make strong impressions in the book but have no time to do so in this film and may hav been better off left on the cutting room floor. More focus on Becky and her plot would seem to be the only way to make this film work.

Ms. Nair nails the period in her direction and embellishes it with the Indian imagery that she is known for from her wonderful Bollywood movie Monsoon Wedding. Thackeray himself was born in India and includes a number of references to British military outposts in that country and how the culture was part of the zeitgeist of the time amongst British aristocrats. That zeitgeist is well captured in a scene that wasn't in the book, a dance scene in which Becky and other high society woman perform a traditional Indian dance for the King of England. For a film budgeted at a mere 35 Million dollars this a lavish production.

The crux of the problem with Vanity Fair is a war between the filmmakers and the producers with Ms. Nair and the creative team looking to do a faithful adaptation and producers fighting to make the film more commercial. The many compromises made along the way, run time, casting amongst others, are obvious and distracting. The films ending is definitely a victim of these compromises as it comes completely out of left field and depends on one credibility testing bit of luck and timing.

Vanity Fair was supposed to signal the beginning of the Oscar campaign season. However when the film missed its original fall 2003 opening and was dropped into the first week of September, many in-the-know Academy watchers threw up red flags. Our suspicions were correct, Vanity Fair is unlikely to challenge for any of the major awards at the end of the year. Compromise, it seems, is not always a good thing. 

Movie Review: Doomsday

Doomsday (2008) 

Directed by Neil Marshall

Written by Neil Marshall

Starring Rhona Mitra, Bob Hoskins, Adrian Lester 

Release Date March 14th, 2008

Published June 12th, 2008 

Director Neil Marshall is a talented scenarist with a flair for hardcore violence. His The Descent is one of the best horror films of the decade. For his latest effort Doomsday, Marshal tries his hand at post-apocalyptic sci fi and finds he has little new to add to this aggressive sub-genre. Though Doomsday is skilled in its violence and has a strong visual sense, the story is beyond laughable, the characters wooden and forgettable.

In some not so distant future a virus dubbed 'Reaper' has devastated much of Scotland. The blood borne, possibly airborn disease has who of the Isle terrified and left London with a damnable decision. Sentencing millions to die horrifying deaths, the government built an 18 mile wall encompassing the whole border between England and Scotland.

Years later drug enforcement cops stumble on a cache of disease victims. The reaper virus is back and another horrible decision must be made. There is however a sliver of hope. Satellites have picked up movement in Glasgow, survivors. The thought is that the legendary Dr. Kane (Malcolm McDowell may have developed a cure.

The government throws together an elite fighting force to go into the infected area, find Kane and the possible cure. Major Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) is charged with leading this force into battle. What she finds are a loose confederacy of survivors for whom violence, human sacrifice and cannibalism are the order of the day.

The skill of Neil Marshall's direction in Doomsday is undeniable. What is lacking is any good sense in the storytelling. Doomsday unfolds in anarchic fashion but lacking a truly anarchic spirit. Marshall can't seem to decide whether he is going for the hardcore cool of 28 Days Later or the ironic, distanced, black humor of Mad Max.

What comes of Doomsday is a failed melange of the darkly comic and the attempted tragic.

Star Rhona Mitra has the physicality and good looks necessary for this role but she is at times far too sullen and lacking in the badass cool that might turn Doomsday from gloomy to just goofy enough for guilty pleasure. I wanted to revel more in her  badassery but Mitra just won't let us in. We admire her stunt work and occasionally smirk at her attempts at humor but the performance is too flat to inspire anything more than modest admiration.

If you like bizarre you may admire Neil Marshall's use of music in Doomsday. Fine Young Cannibals, Siouxie and the Banshees and Frankie Goes To Hollywood each receive prominent placement in Doomsday in some bizarre, overly ironic tribute to the 1980's.

There was potential for Doomsday to be the kind of badass action movie that combined the spirit of Big Trouble in Little China with the horror aesthete of 28 Days Later. Unfortunately, Marshall can't quite get the mix right. His visual style is impeccable but for all the attention paid to stunts and effects, the story falters and Doomsday disappoints.

Movie Review Hollywoodland

Hollywoodland (2006)

Directed by Allen Coulter 

Written by Paul Bernbaum 

Starring Ben Affleck, Diane Lane, Adrien Brody, Bob Hoskins

Release Date September 8th. 2006 

Published September 7th, 2006 

The death of Adventures of Superman star George Reeves is one that has haunted Hollywood for years. Did this once successful TV actor take his own life during a party in his home in 1959 or was he murdered? The new mystery/biopic Hollywoodland does not purport to answer any that question. Rather, Hollywoodland exists to ask some probing questions about the death of George Reeves. A question that may be answered by Hollywoodland is whether audiences will ever again accept Ben Affleck as a big time movie star. If people cannot let Ben off the hook for his movie mistakes, after his exceptional performance in Hollywoodland, they may never will.

By 1959 the career of George Reeves. formerly TV's Man of Steel, Superman, was seemingly over. After breaking off hsi relationship with Toni Mannix (Diane Lane), the wife of Hollywood power broker, Eddie Mannix (Bob Hoskins), George Reeves (Ben Affleck) found his once promising Hollywood career suddenly shut down. Trapped in a loveless relationship with a woman he had met only months earlier; and with a serious drinking problem, Reeves went to bed on June 16th 1959 with little promise for good things in his future.

Does that mean that Reeves went to his bedroom that night and took a German luger pistol and put it to his head and pulled the trigger? No one seems to know for sure. Reeves' mother, Helen Bessolo (Lois Smith), is certain that her son would not kill himself. So certain is Helen that she moves from her home in Illinois to Los Angeles where she engages the services of a private eye named Louis Simo (Adrien Brody).

Better known for his headline making than his detective work, Simo was once a prominent studio detective until he gave away confidential information about a starlet's death to a newspaper. Now, working out of a fleabag motel room, Simo's most consistent work is following and photographing cheating wives. That is, when he is not fighting with his ex-wife Laurie (Molly Parker) over the care of their son (Zach Mills).

The death of George Reeves looks to Simo to be exactly the case the LAPD said it was; a simple suicide. But with cash in pocket from Reeves' mother and the chance to make some big headlines, Simo takes the case and finds far more than he bargained for.

Louis Simo is a fictional creation of screenwriter Paul Bernbaum and director Allen Coulter who use Simo in Hollywoodland as a shorthand character to reveal real life mysteries. The things that the Simo character uncovers and the questions he asks are legitimate mysteries that have kept the death of George Reeves in the headlines for years. This fictionalization does nothing to dampen the real life mystery of the death of Superman.

The one problem with Simo as a character are the subplots attached to him. Director Coulter, best known for his work on HBO's Sex and the City and Six Feet Under, gives far to much screen time to Simo's problems with his wife, her new boyfriend, and the issues with his son. And on top of all of that Simo has a girlfriend and another case he is investigating. Each of these Simo subplots take far too much time away from the far more intriguing real life story of George Reeves and his mystifying death.

This is not the fault of Adrien Brody who rises to the challenge of this difficult role. The first half hour of the film is spent establishing Simo as a character and admittedly, it tries the patience of audiences who came for the George Reeves story. A testament to Brody's talent is that he holds these scenes as well as he does. The scenes still try the patience but they are certainly less irritating because of Brody's magnetic performance.

Ben Affleck delivers a tremendous performance as George Reeves in Hollywoodland. A subject of derision for the past few years because of missteps like Surviving Christmas and Gigli; Affleck is redeemed as the failing actor who could not escape the shadow of his most famous role. Affleck brings to Reeves the charisma and magnetism that Reeves exhibited on television, but where Affleck really excels is in bringing out Reeves' sad, tortured soul away from the glare of the stage lights. 

Like Andy Kaufman, who suffered every moment of his time on the television series Taxi, George Reeves hated the role of Superman. Reeves knew that playing a kiddie show hero, as his Superman was portrayed, would typecast him as not being a serious actor. We know this from the testimonials of Reeves' former flame, Toni Mannix and while anything she says regarding Reeves is colored with bitterness over their break up, it does track with Reeves' post-Supeman life where he struggled against the kid show stereotype.

When Superman finally ends and Toni is unwilling to help Reeves's career by talking to her husband, Reeves ends it and gives Mannix a motive to kill him. Of course, the volatile studio head Eddie Mannix also had plenty of motive to want Reeves killed. Reeves cuckolded the studio head and since Mannix had a reputation for punishing his enemies, the Mannix murder theory isn't farfetched/ These are a couple of plausible but wholly unprovable theories that the film covers but nothing close to a resolution of the mystery is approached. Despite the strong conjecture, you are likely to leave Hollywoodland thinking Reeves took his own life/ 

Movie Review Maid in Manhattan

Maid in Manhattan (2002) 

Directed by Wayne Wang 

Written by Kevin Wade 

Starring Jennifer Lopez, Ralph Fiennes, Natasha Richardson, Stanley Tucci, Bob Hoskins

Release Date December 13th, 2002 

Published December 13th, 2002 

The romantic comedy is dead!

Or if it isn't it should be.

I'm sorry, I know people love the genre of beautiful stars falling in love in magical ways but the genre’s conventions and cliches have made the genre pass and predictable. That is not to say that romance in film is dead but that Hollywood needs to come up with a different way of presenting it. The Cinderella syndrome begun with 1990's Pretty Woman has to stop.

I realize the Cinderella-Prince Charming dynamic is one that women have fallen in love with but even the most forgiving of female filmgoers must acknowledge the genre's shortcomings. Its predictability, sugary cuteness and desperate reliance on coincidence and misunderstanding are now beyond grating. Case in point, the new Jennifer Lopez-Ralph Fiennes romance Maid In Manhattan, yet another Pretty Woman retread right off the romantic comedy assembly line.

J.Lo stars as Marisa, a maid at an opulent New York hotel, where the rich and famous make their temporary homes. Marisa is a divorced mother of one of those typically precocious romantic comedy kids named Ty, played by Tyler Posey. In typical genre fashion, Ty has a unique quality that will become important in the meeting of the two leads. Tyler loves politics, he loves it so much that as a present his mom buys him copies of the Richard Nixon White House tapes and Ty has memorized the voting record of New York Assemblyman Christopher Marshall (Ralph Fiennes). 

Marshall is staying at the hotel where Marisa works and of course he meets Ty and is impressed with his political awareness. Also staying at the hotel is a flighty rich blonde woman named Caroline (Miranda Richardson) who asks Marisa to return a very expensive outfit for her while she is out for the day. Of course Marisa can't resist the urge to try on the outfit while in the Hotel Suite and wouldn't you know that this is the moment when Ty introduces her to Chris. And what a shock when he mistakes her for a guest instead of a maid and invites her and Ty to come with him while he walks his dog in the park. Of course she could avoid the confusion by just coming clean and admitting the truth but then we wouldn't have a movie.

Of course it wouldn't be a romantic comedy without wacky supporting characters and a scene where the characters and wacky supporting cast dance and sing though no music is playing except that which is on the soundtrack. How do they hear it? They dance and sing and then it's time for a montage of makeovers and dresses, because of course Marisa has a ball to attend.

After all, a movie about a Senator who falls in love with a maid without a mistaken identity plot and a lot of near misses where he almost discovers the truth wouldn't be much of a romantic comedy. These stupid plot developments and false crises are tiresome and insulting to anyone who has ever seen a movie before.

Golly do you think when Chris finds out that Marisa is just a maid he will be upset? Do you think that he will get over it quickly and the two will live happily ever after? Do you think the sky is blue and the Earth is round?

Memo to Jennifer Lopez: What Happened? You were so good in Out of Sight, The Cell and Angel Eyes. In each of those movies you showed real acting chops. This is your third role in a row you have played on autopilot, Wedding Planner and Enough previously. There is hope for you yet but another turkey like this one and you may want to stick with the singing career.

Romance in movies is not dead; it is at the moment merely enslaved by cliché and creative laziness. There are still rays of hope, films like Secretary and Chasing Amy both take elements of traditional romantic comedy then find ways to tweak them and make them new, exciting, intelligent and funny. There is still hope but with each Maid In Manhattan or Sweet Home Alabama that hope dims just a little.