Review: Get Smart (2008)

* * *
Director: Peter Segal
Starring: Steve Carell, Anne Hathaway

The TV version of Get Smart was before my time, but it’s one of my dad’s favourite shows so I’m familiar enough with the premise without being attached to the “purity” of the original. Although I enjoyed the film version, I think it falls prey to the same problem found in a lot of TV to movie adaptations, which is that it can’t seem to make up its mind about how to engage the source material. This inherent unevenness is a drag on the film, giving it an uneasy mix of action and comedy.

At the beginning of the film Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) is an analyst whose reports run hundreds of pages, detailing seemingly mundane facts that the field agents mock but that the Chief (Alan Arkin) appreciates because it reminds him of old school spy work. Smart wants desperately to be promoted to field agent, but the Chief thinks he’s too valuable as an analyst until a break in at CONTROL headquarters means that the identities of all the field agents have been compromised. In order to stop the latest plot by KAOS, the Chief has no other option but to promote Max to Agent 86 and send him out with Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), whose recent plastic surgery means that she’s still viable in the field.

Max and 99 are sent to the Ukraine where agents from KAOS, led by Siegfried (Terrence Stamp), are assembling nuclear weapons that they intend to sell to dictatorships which are hostile towards the US. The plot is set-up well enough, but it’s really the film’s secondary concern. First and foremost the film is about letting Max find new and interesting ways to injure himself, from a mishap with a mini-crossbow to his attempt to slip through a room secured with laser beams. Carell takes these moments in stride, as able at physical as verbal comedy.

When the film is focused on the comedic aspect of the story it’s quite good, but in when it tries to be an action movie it looses its way a little bit. Maybe I’m just difficult to please, but I found myself a little bored by the explosions, high speed chases, and cartoony violence peppered throughout the story. It’s not that it isn’t all well done, it’s just that it’s nothing that I haven’t seen before and I found myself thinking, “Get back to the funny stuff.” Another problem is the romantic storyline between Max and 99. While I know that their relationship is canon as far as the TV series is concerned and formula as far as film construction is concerned, I just didn’t feel any sexual tension between the two which made me believe that they could make the transition from friendly antagonism to love. I think that Carell and Hathaway have good “buddy” chemistry, they just don’t have romantic/sexual chemistry.

Get Smart isn’t an entirely successful movie, but I ultimately feel compelled to give it a pass. I laughed a lot and I think Carell is well cast even if the material sometimes lets him down. If there’s a sequel (and I’m assuming that there will be given the $100 million plus gross), I hope the filmmakers learn from the mistakes of this one and are able to work out some of the kinks.

Review: The Departed (2006)

* * * *
Director: Martin Scorsese
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson

I need to confess to a bad movie related habit: sometimes it takes me a really (really) long time to get around to seeing a movie that A) I want to see, B) I have every reason to believe I'll like, and C) has been much praised and talked about by others. Part of the reason I started blogging was to break myself of this habit. And so, like Eternal Sunshine... before it, The Departed, is a movie that I've only recently seen, loved and lamented having missed when it first came out.

The Departed begins with Jack Nicholson as mobster Frank Costello and if the openning doesn't remind you of Goodfellas then... you've never seen Goodfellas. However, while Goodfellas begins with the still star-struck narration of the protégée, Departed begins with the weary narration of the mentor. Frank will take Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) under his wing, grooming him to enter the police force and become his spy. Sullivan thrives, rising quickly through the ranks and passing on information to Frank so that he can stay one step ahead of the authorities.

While Colin is a bad guy pretending to be good, there's also a good guy pretending to be bad: Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) is rising in a different fashion as a cop tapped to infiltrate the mob. Years pass as this cat-and-mouse game is played with Costigan supplying information to Queenan (Martin Sheen) and Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) and Sullivan keeping Costello aprised. Both organizations are aware that there's a leak and both Costigan and Sullivan are on edge, under constant threat that the delicate balance of their lives will tip and leave them exposed and in danger. The plot itself is quite delicate insofar as any element revealed too soon would destroy the tension that's been building, but writer William Monahan manages to maintain the balance, keeping the plot from toppling over on itself and also keeping it from growing too heavy. This is a film with a complex plot and a two and a half hour running time, but it clips along at a great pace and that's as much a credit to Monahan as to director Martin Scorsese or editor Thelma Schoonmaker.

DiCaprio and Damon carry the weight of the film and both are able to convery the desperation both men feel. These two characters are in a sense rudderless, their identities so flexible that even they don't always know who they are, but neither actor ever seems lost behind their masks. The performance by DiCaprio is especially moving as Costigan's knowledge that not only is his false identity under constant threat of exposure but that if something were to happen to Queenan and Dignam, he could lose his "real" identity as well, takes a heavy toll on him both physically and mentally. It's a performance which displays a great deal of vulnerability, which you don't often see or expect in this type of movie.

There are many other reasons to see this movie, from the inter-play between Wahlberg and Alec Baldwin (Wahlberg and anyone, actually), to the performance by Nicholson, to the almost comical way that cops keep turning out to be criminals and criminals keep turning out to be cops. It's a great movie, a genre film in the best sense: one that embraces the conventions of the genre but rises above the cliches.

Canadian Film Review: Shake Hands With The Devil (2007)

* * * *
Director: Roger Spottiswoode
Starring: Roy Dupuis

Canadians love Romeo Dallaire. In the space of about five years, we’ve seen Shake Hands With The Devil the book, the documentary, and now the feature film. It makes me wonder if maybe Dallaire ought to throw his hat into the ring for leadership of the Liberal party, but I suppose that’s another subject entirely. Roger Spottiswoode’s film, adapted from Dallaire’s book, is angry and intense, exploring both the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and the psychological effects of bearing witness.

The story begins in 1993, when the two sides of the conflict have agreed to a cease fire and it seems as if an extended period of peace is within reach. The U.N. peacekeepers led by General Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) are cautiously optimistic that a lasting agreement can be made, but it soon becomes apparent that a plot is underway to restart hostilities. The U.N. soldiers have several opportunities to prevent the situation from exploding but each time are given orders not to interfere, to simply stand by as the situation spirals desperately out of control and the slaughter of Tutsis and Hutu moderates begins across the country.

The film has two primary concerns. The first is to demonstrate how, in the name of diplomacy and self-interest, the U.N. left its soldiers impotent in the face of crisis. “If it’s genocide,” Dallaire explains, “they have to do something.” If, however, you call it something else – or ignore it completely – then you have no obligation to intervene. Troops are removed, supplies are too late in arriving, bodies litter the road, all while the U.N. soldiers make do with what little they have to work with and struggle to bring attention to the crisis. The second of the film’s concerns is with the effect that having to stand back and watch people being systematically murdered has on the soldiers. Dallaire himself is represented as being literally haunted by what he sees and by film’s end he recognizes that he’s no longer in any shape to be a part of this particular mission.

The performance by Roy Dupuis is extraordinary. There are so many instances when he could have descended into scenery chewing, but his performance is always restrained and controlled, hinting at Dallaire’s demons rather than hammering them out of the screen and at the audience. As for the film itself, it’s wonderfully assembled. The history of the conflict is complex but the film finds a way to provide a cursory overview of the build-up to the genocide without allowing the story to be burdened with being a mere history lesson. It’s a very well-balanced film, guided with a firm and able hand.

The U.N. doesn’t come out looking particularly good here but it isn’t the sole target of the film’s anger. The focus is actually less on laying blame – there’s far too much to go around to place it squarely on anyone’s shoulders – than on pointing out that hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with the politics of the situation were none the less punished for it. When Dallaire tries to arrange the transport of refugees behind RPF lines, he’s informed that the forces are too busy trying to save the country to concern themselves with refugees. “What is your country?” Dallaire asks, “these hills, those trees, that lake over there?” The people got lost along the way, transformed into symbols and statistics. Shake Hands With The Devil is a brutal film not because the violence it depicts is graphic (it’s pretty tame in that respect) but because the emotional and psychological chords that it strikes are so sensitive. It’s a searing indictment not of any one army or of the U.N. but of humanity in general and the preference for memorializing tragedy instead of preventing it.

Review: Rachel Getting Married (2008)

* * * 1/2
Director: Jonathan Demme
Starring: Anne Hathaway, Rosemarie DeWitt

Rachel Getting Married is a film about the three “a”s of family get-togethers: awkwardness, agony, affection. A lot of things go unsaid in the film, and a lot of things are said that perhaps shouldn’t be. It can occasionally be difficult to watch but it really nails the complex and sometimes contradictory dynamics that play out between members of a family. At the centre of it all, Anne Hathaway demonstrates just how much she has matured as an actress.

Hathaway stars as Kym, a woman with deep emotional scars who takes a break from her latest stint in rehab to attend the wedding of her sister, Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt). Although her reunion with her sister is happy, albeit a bit tentatively, tensions quickly begin to mount. Kym is accustomed to being the centre of attention and can’t bring herself to relinquish it, even on what should be Rachel’s day. This is par for the course as far as Rachel is concerned and there comes a point when she basically accuses Kym of holding the family hostage with her antics. Their father (Bill Irwin) tries to mediate, but makes things worse by seeming (to Rachel, at least) to favour Kym, about whom he is considerably and understandably worried.

Largely absent from the pre-wedding festivities is Rachel and Kym’s mother, Abby (Debra Winger), who even when she is around holds herself at a distance from her children. Her participation in the wedding is slight, even when Rachel tries to gently prod her into becoming more involved, and she remains largely cold and emotionless throughout the proceedings, save for one scene between her and Kym. The way that these three characters interact with each other explains a lot without actually spelling everything out. It’s a prime example of how to show rather than tell.

As Kym, Anna Hathaway really comes into her own as an actress. I’ve always found Hathaway to be a likeable but not particularly memorable actress, but here she renders a performance of incredible depth. There is one scene in particular which stands out for me, when Kym, who has allowed herself to become defined by a family tragedy, asks who she’s supposed to be if she stops being the family’s train wreck. DeWitt is similarly excellent as the frustrated older sister who at one point informs Kym that she wishes she’d either get better or die so that the family can finally be released from her chaos. The relationship between the sisters is fraught but not doomed – beneath all the old resentments that have been built up, there’s genuine affection and a desire for things to be better between them.

To navigate the audience through these relationships director Jonathan Demme uses a handheld camera, which gives the story an intimacy that is occasionally brutal. It should be said though that during the wedding reception scenes it does start to feel a little too much like watching a home movie, and as an audience you start to feel a bit anxious for the story to get moving again. When all is said and done, however, the good far outweighs the bad and this is definitely a movie worth seeing.

The War... On My Sanity

In the space of about a month I saw both Miracle At St. Anna and Passchendaele and found myself facing a conundrum: what I admired about both films was so good that I wanted to recommend them, but what frustrated me about them was bad enough that I just couldn’t bring myself to give either a better than mixed review. My problem with both films is essentially the same. I thought the battle scenes in both were top-notch, but the stories themselves were subpar. Given that a film’s longevity owes less to its theatrical run than to the various formats in which it will be available after it leaves theatres, and keeping in mind that the intensity of battle sequences will be lessened in the translation from big screen to small, my question is this: can a war movie stand on battle scenes alone?

There is no shortage of movies about war and even the worst can generally boast of some level of technical proficiency. For example, Pearl Harbor is an awful movie but it nonetheless possesses some impressive scenes of warfare. The skill displayed in these scenes isn’t particularly surprising because while Michael Bay isn’t good at much, he’s an expert at blowing shit up. However, these scenes are no match for everything which surrounds them, namely a listless romantic triangle, cardboard characters, and inane dialogue, including one line that sent me into a spasm of anger and annoyance (“I think World War II just started,” says Danny in 1941). Given all the bad things about Pearl Harbor, I’ve never felt compelled to see it again, not even for the good things hidden deep within it.

Battle scenes are the showcase of any war movie, but they can’t be the point of those movies. Those which are unsuccessful are the ones which focus all their efforts on staging explosions and firefights and then cobble together a story out of clichés to fill in the blanks. Movies like this rely on a false sense of patriotism to manipulate you into caring about characters who’ve been afforded no depth, who become little more than shallow symbols of what the film claims to be about. If the characters don’t stay with you, if their struggles are forgotten the moment the credits begin to roll, how can the film itself have any value? To borrow a line from a man whose characters have endured centuries and whose battles always took place off stage, these are stories “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

The great war movies, the ones which really stand out, are the ones which combine strong battle sequences with compelling stories and characters. Movies like Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Downfall, The Big Red One or Lawrence of Arabia are as gripping in their quieter moments as they are during their scenes of combat. While these films aren’t without their flaws they do have something which the two films that inspired this post lack: focus. Movies like Miracle At St. Anna and Passchendaele want to be about everything and in the process of throwing plot threads at the wall to see what will stick, seem to lose their initial purpose. Passchendaele? Not really about the battle for Passchendaele. Miracle At St. Anna? Not really about the massacre at St. Anna. War movies cost a lot of money and the people who make them tend to have very personal reasons for doing so, but they should never become mere vanity projects. The reality they try to invoke and the horrors they revisit are too important and ought to be given more than cursory attention rather than be relegated to an afterthought by a filmmaker too mired in self-importance that he or she fails to recognize the limitations of effective storytelling. I guess what I’m saying is that I want a war movie to be about what it claims to be about because if all I wanted to see was stuff blowing up and limbs being torn off there’s no shortage of mindless action movies made to cater to that.