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: Beowulf

Beowulf (2007) 

Directed by Robert Zemeckis

Written by Neil Gaiman, Roger Avary 

Starring Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Robin Wright Penn

Release Date November 16th, 2007

Published November 16th, 2007

Allow me to admit my bias against Beowulf right here at the begin of my review. I am not a fan of the technology used to bring this literary classic to life. My preference has been and will always be in favor of real, flesh and blood actors over the computer simulations. The entirely CGI approach of director Robert Zemeckis does absolutely nothing for me.

Some find the technology to be mind blowing, I find it to be lifeless, like watching someone else play a video game. The fact is, this technology hasn't impressed me since 1998's breakthrough animated flick Final Fantasy. That film lacked life as well but was a technical revelation that Robert Zemeckis has been chasing ever since.

Zemeckis' Beowulf like his kiddie flick The Polar Express has done little to improve upon the motion capture animation that made Final Fantasy a breakthrough nearly a decade ago. Though some will say that the eyes of the character are more lively and their movements are less herky jerky, I didn't notice the difference. Then again, I'm biased.

Ray Winstone donned the doodads and googahs to bring himself to CGI life as a gym rat looking Beowulf. All rippling muscle and blustery boastfulness, Beowulf comes to this nameless Danish kingdom in order to slay a demon who hates merriment. Each time the good time charlies of the kingdom get together for some music and some mead, the demon appears and tears them limb from limb.

Enter Beowulf and his army of viking-esque conquerors. Taking time from their raping and pillaging to take advantage of the bounty on the demon's head, Beowulf and company stake out the King's (Anthony Hopkins) mead hall and begin a massive party meant to draw the ire of the demon. It works, but when the demon, Grendel (Crispin Glover), arrive he manages to kill half of Beowulf's men.

Beowulf however, does manage to kill the demon and is soon after named the heir to the king's throne. Not before he is once again pressed into demon killing duty to take on Grendel's mother (Angelina Jolie). Beowulf's showdown with Grendel's mother seems like a success but in reality only maintains a long standing curse on the kingdom that Beowulf soon comes to rule as king.

The last act, with Beowulf as an old man taking on one last battle, is the most compelling of the film but by that point I wasn't all that engaged in this videogame writ large. I simply could not find a way inside this cold, impersonal form of filmmaking. It's not just the creepy looking technologically rendered characters but the storytelling gimmicks employed by director Robert Zemeckis and writers Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery.

The story itself plays like a group of middle aged guys trying to relate to their teenage sons by adopting the hip lingo of the day. Imagine your dad using the phrase 'bling bling' and you get my meaning. Beowulf apes the hip action of 300 but with a tin ear toward why teens went for that blood, guts and technology event.

300 succeeded as a hip music video version of history. Beowulf is classic rock to 300's Finger 11. (Is that a hip reference or what? Hey kids?) 

Putting the ugly technology aside Beowulf, as voiced by the great Ray Winstone, is something of a feckless hero. He boasts of killing copious sea monsters, the number of which changes with every telling of his story. He boasts of killing many demons but even the one he does kill isn't nearly as impressive as the story he fabricates about the killing.

Indeed much of the tale of brave Beowulf comes from his own fantastical storytelling. I get that this is supposed to be his torturous character flaw but it turned me off from the first moment and even when his moment of redemption arrives, late in the third act, I wasn't all that moved. Of course, this could be further attributed to the technology of Beowulf. I can't say whether a flesh and blood actor might have made this character more compelling.

This idea that CGI can compete with real flesh and blood actors is absolutely ludicrous. Take a moment to ponder the lead performance of Ray Winstone in Beowulf and juxtapose it against his minor supporting turn in The Departed and there is no contest. Winstone in person in The Departed is far more interesting than any shred of the fake Ray Winstone crafted in Beowulf.

Frankly, my reaction to Winstone in Beowulf is one of embarrassment. I feel bad for this fine actor that he must be subjected to this treatment in Beowulf. That he must undergo CGI plastic surgery to find stardom in mainstream movies is a sad commentary. Ray Winstone is so much more moving in the flesh than he ever could be in rippling CGI muscle.

The supporting characters are even less interesting. Anthony Hopkins bellows his way through the role of the aging king. Robin Wright Penn's Queen is a lovely CGI rendered beauty but something of a wet blanket in the end. Beowulf's men, including the usually terrific Brenden Gleeson, are colorful but are mostly cannon fodder for the demons.

Only Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother registers beyond the technology. Though she looks like Angelina Jolie rendered in videogame form, this is a videogame I would love to play. Jolie looks gorgeous in her animated nudity, the naughty bits barely covered by a sheen of gold that forever coats her demon self. Her storyline is undercooked and forgettable but Zemeckis can atleast claim to have created the sexiest cartoon since Jessica Rabbit.

Whether that is something to be proud of I will leave you to answer for yourself.

So what is the point of Beowulf? Reading Roger Ebert's review you get the impression that it is something of a satire. I however, saw the film as deathly self serious, for the most part, with a few moments of ill-conceived humor that feel off key and out of place. Take for instance the extended Austin Powers gag that features a naked Beowulf conveniently placed behind any number of gag props to cover his manhood.

Why must Beowulf be nude? A nod to the underwear models of 300? Maybe, but I don't know for sure. All I know is that Beowulf is quite uncomfortably nude and taking part in scenes that Jerry Seinfeld would no doubt classify as bad naked, as opposed to the Angelina Jolie nude scenes which are entirely good naked in the most gratuitous fashion.

I say nude and yet we are talking about a PG 13 movie. Curious? Somehow the MPAA classifies animated nudity as not being nudity. Of course with Beowulf's little Beowulf conveniently hidden behind a series of props, we have no real test of the MPAA's stomach on the issue of animated nudity. Jolie too is conveniently covered with dripping gold over her naughty bit. This must mean something to the oddballs at the MPAA.

Stranger than the films approach to nudity, and the MPAA's standards for such, is the attitude taken toward violence in the film and by the standard setters. Beowulf is exceptionally bloody and violent in the same blood spurting vein as 300. Yet, without the CGI nakedness, 300 is rated R and Beowulf is PG-13. Beowulf is covered in blood, heads ripped from bodies, limbs and flesh copiously torn and yet the MPAA never feels as if 13 year old children should be protected? What then were they so concerned about with 300?

I must say that I love the kink of CGI nudity and violence messing with the stale minds of the MPAA censors. That they must render a decision on such utter ridiculousness as the sight of animated boobs is terrifically funny.

That I have spent the past few paragraphs discussing things about Beowulf that have little to do with the quality of the film itself should give you a good sense of how little I cared for it overall. I have no interest in discussing the entertainment value of the action or my reactions to the climactic scenes or to the 3D rendering, because my reactions weren't nearly as interesting as the jokey elements on the periphery of this self serious CGI cartoon.

I'm biased. I want real, flesh and blood actors and will accept no substitute. Like the much reviled Jar Jar Binks, Beowulf is an impressive work of technology but he remains lifeless and unmoving to me. Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie do more with the glint in their eyes and the lines of their faces than could ever be captured by a computer. Acting is a physical profession. It is a mind, body, soul profession that communicates emotions and ideas beyond mere words.

The lifeless videogame characters of Beowulf, whether rendered in 3D or flat 2d, can never compel as well as a real life, flesh and blood actor. This is the failure of Beowulf and any film that follows the ludicrous idea that our stars can be replaced with computer chips.

Movie Review: Welcome to Marwen

Welcome to Marwen (2018) 

Directed by Robert Zemeckis 

Written by Robert Zemeckis, Caroline Zemeckis 

Starring Steve Carell, Leslie Mann, Merritt Wever, Janelle Monae, Eiza Gonzalez, Gwendoline Christie

Release Date December 21st, 2018 

Published December 20th, 2018

Welcome to Marwen is a cringe-inducing drama about a man who suffered a terrible, tragic beating and reclaims his identity through art. There is a good movie to be made of this concept, but this isn’t it. Perhaps the documentary made about this story, called Marwencol, is that movie. I haven’t seen that doc unfortunately, and so I can only judge this story based on this movie and ugh, it’s not an easy sit. 

Not long prior to when this story is set, Mark Hogancamp (Steve Carell), was brutally attacked outside of a bar in his small New York town. He was left in a coma and the subsequent traumas included losing his memory of anything that happened prior to the attack and losing the ability to draw, a long time passion. As we meet Mark he is indulging in his fantasy world, known as Marwen, wherein he is a heroic World War 2 pilot who is rescued from the Nazis by a group of gun toting women who are mythic representations of the real women in Mark’s life. 

Marwen is Mark’s at home art installation where he uses 12 inch dolls to represent himself and the women in his life. There is Roberta (Merritt Wever), a kindly hobby shop owner who helps Mark obtain his dolls and supplies, Julie (Janelle Monae), Mark’s former physical therapist, Carlalla (Eiza Gonzalez), a co-worker of Mark’s at a local bar, and Anna (Gwendoline Christie), Mark’s visiting nurse. There are also two other fantasy characters in Marwen but we will get to them as they are both troublesome. 

There will soon be a new character in Marwen. Mark has just gotten a new neighbor, Nicol (Leslie Mann), who Mark is immediately smitten with. After seeing her and briefly meeting her and finding her very kind and patient, Mark goes to the hobby shop and buys a doll on which he projects her image. He even names the doll Nicol and begins to position her romantically with his doll avatar Hoagie. Here’s where the cringing begins and does not let up in Welcome to Marwen. 

Welcome to Marwen is quite loosely based on the life story of the real Mark Hogancamp, a life that has already been rendered in a well-reviewed documentary. Much of the other details are inventions of Zemeckis and writer Caroline Thompson who might have been better advised to stick closer to the real story. The invented romantic aspirations of Mark are creepy and cringe-y and render him difficult to take. 

The real Mark Hogancamp never had a Nicol, he named his characters and his town after his ex-wife, who was long out of the picture before he was attacked and a good friend whom he had no romantic designs on. The real Mark Hogancamp, on some level, understands that he’s not in a place where romance is right for him. As portrayed in this movie, Mark is a true weirdo whose fixation on Nicol has the earmarks of creepy stalker behavior, something I am sure was not intended in this supposedly uplifting story. 

I will put it to you dear reader, a strange man you’ve only just met begins to fixate on you, purchases a doll that he makes to look like you, begins to have that doll in a romance with a doll that looks like him, are you cool with that? I haven’t mentioned that he also has a few pairs of Nicol's shoes that he likes to wear and that is arguably the least creepy thing happening here. Again, the movie doesn’t intend any of this to be creepy but the way it is crafted on screen makes it unintentionally, off-puttingly, creepy. 

The movie doesn’t do much of anything to make Mark likable. Other than casting the innately likable Steve Carell, the film portrays Mark as awkward, humorless, childlike, a poor dresser, prone to violent attacks of fantasy, and a hermit. The women in his life indulge all of these qualities and reinforce them to a degree that goes beyond kindness and into the realm of fantasy where most of them only exist. The female characters in Welcome to Marwen are mostly the invention of the filmmakers and are not part of the real story as portrayed in the documentary, or so I have been told. 

Speaking of fantasy characters, there is another controversial inclusion in Welcome to Marwen. Diane Kruger voices a character named Deja who is the one character in the film universe that is not based on any of the other characters in the movie. Mark describes Deja as the Belgian Witch of Marwen, a woman so deeply in love with Hoagie that she makes his other potential love interests vanish. 

Deja is a supremely clumsy metaphor for addiction. She wears a bright blue glove that is the same color as the pain medication that Mark has been abusing. It’s hinted that Mark’s drinking problem, another addiction, was what drove away the wife he can only recall from photographic evidence and the fact that Mark was drunk the night he got beat up is part of his notion that he may have deserved the beating he received. By vanquishing Deja, Mark is symbolically vanquishing his addiction. If only life were so simple as defeating a doll. .

I debated whether to include a discussion of the other character in Marwen but I will mention it. In yet another creepy and tone deaf detail, Zemeckis includes a scene of Mark indulging in his pastime of watching his favorite porno actress, Suzette, who is portrayed by Zemeckis’ wife Leslie (Eww!). Mark likes Suzette so much that he made her a doll character in Marwen and when Nicol asks about her, Mark is not hesitant about explaining her origin in yet another cringe-y bit of tin-eared dialogue. 

It’s a shame all of this goes down this way because some of Welcome to Marwen isn’t completely terrible. The film uses some wonderful technical wizardry to bring Mark’s art to life. Mark doesn’t just play with these dolls, he poses them and takes photos of them that are genuine works of art. The film even builds to Mark’s art exhibit. As we watch Mark work, his art is alive and moving around and having dialogue and it’s all rather inventive looking.

This could be a device that deepens the story and creates an artful insight into Mark’s troubled, damaged, mind but as played by all involved in Welcome to Marwen, the dolls are yet another clumsy metaphorical device. They are there to deliver exposition and give simple metaphoric representations of Mark’s mental state. It doesn’t help that Zemeckis uses the dolls to deliver yet another creepy punchline regarding Mark; he occasionally poses his female dolls topless. Bearing in mind that these are dolls based on people in his life, it plays as another creepy and entirely unnecessary detail that the filmmakers seem to think is charming and funny. 

From what I understand about the documentary, none of what Zemeckis puts into the movie is true of the real Mark Hogancamp. He might be a creepy pervert but from what I have read about the documentary, it appears more interested in him as an oddball character and a talented artist. The romantic plot that Zemeckis forces into the movie is a completely misguided nod to mainstream filmmaking that requires that all quirky male protagonists have a love interest, even if the character has no qualities that would attract said love interest. 

To be fair, the Nicol character, as played by Leslie Mann, never realizes she’s a love interest until a truly hard to watch scene in which she has to let him down easy. It’s a supremely hard to watch and misguided scene that had me squirming in my seat. Mark is a character that is hard enough to take without the movie so forcefully trying to be sympathetic to his misguided ideas of romance. It’s meant to be an insight into his struggle but it all just comes off as forcefully sad. 

Welcome to Marwen is a technical marvel in some ways but mostly, it’s just hard to watch. The characters are all offbeat caricatures, the dialogue is full of the kind of lazy exposition you expect from action movies not from character driven drama and while the technical wizardry is neat, it can’t make up for the many other deficiencies in the story and characters of Welcome to Marwen.