Cruel Intentions: Actually, they’re too nice

To commemorate the return of “Gossip Girl” tonight, let’s revisit a well-known but flawed 1999 movie that should be required watching for anyone who likes Josh Schwartz’s show…

Cruel Intentions

Rating: two stars (out of four)

Watching Cruel Intentions today, in 2009, it was almost impossible not to think of “Gossip Girl,” the popular TV show that relishes the lascivious, mischievous, and devious exploits of uber-rich, uber-preppy high school students living on the Upper East Side of New York City.  The teenagers in this movie, backed with the both comforting and numbing knowledge that their careers and financial situations lack any semblance of uncertainty, introduce excitement into their lives with beguiling games to lure members of the opposite sex, snarling plots to humiliate enemies, and discreetly mentioned but explicitly realized sexual exploration.  Sound familiar?

Indeed, now I won’t be able to watch this movie again without seeing Chuck as Sebastian and Blair as Kathryn.  And my moderate knowledge of contemporary teenage dramas makes it easy for me to buy the capacity of these individuals to engage in such elaborate schemes, most of which are underpinned by the goal of enhancing their popularity.  Cruel Intentionsis based off Choderlos de Laclos’ novel Les Liaisons Dangereuses (which has been translated into film an astonishing four times), and some reviewers couldn’t buy the shift of the characters’ situations.  James Berardinelli wrote that, “What works with mature individuals in 1782 France seems false when applied to high school kids in 1999 America.”

Perhaps because of “Gossip Girl” and “The O.C.,” not to mention films like Thirteenpresenting young people growing old quite fast, and a sprinkling of my own experience thrown in, I wholeheartedly disagree with the above statement—it now seems more natural than ever for this kind of plot to be attributed to teenagers rather than old-fashioned Frenchmen.  That said…there wasn’t much more about the film that I could throw myself into.  This particular nefarious plot allows Sebastian (Ryan Phillipe), his school’s reigning Don Juan, and his stepsister Kathryn (Sarah Michelle Gellar, from TV’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and most teenage boys’ fantasies) to work for and against each other at the same time (these things get complicated).

Kathryn, irritated that her ex-boyfriend preferred the nubile and naïve young Cecile (Selma Blair), solicits Sebastian to work his magic on her and help ruin her reputation.  He complies, but he’s more interested in a greater challenge—deflowering (the back cover of the DVD actually uses that word) Annette (Reese Witherspoon).  Annette, who conveniently happens to be the daughter of the school’s new headmaster and is thus moving to town, wrote an article for a teen magazine extolling the virtues of virginity before marriage; this, combined with her looks, makes her irresistible to Sebastian.

Kathryn wants his car if he can’t seduce her; if he can, he gets Kathryn herself.  So there’s a bit of Clueless (with half-sibling relationships seemingly avoiding the stigma of incest) sprinkled over the “Gossip Girl” undertones. (The GG episode wherein Blair asks Chuck to seduce Vanessa with the promise of herself later bears a particularly uncanny resemblance.) Unfortunately, Cruel Intentions has little of the charm and zest of Clueless or the damn-the-stiffs embrace of decadence of “Gossip Girl.”  It’s too somber, too watered-down and safe, and, ultimately, too bland.

This is the kind of movie that should be described as a “doozy,” that should be full of delicious lines and lively acting and come-on-that’s-impossible-but-really-fun-to-watch plot twists.  But unlike “Gossip Girl,” Cruel Intentions doesn’t really seem to cherish its characters, faults and all—it makes noise about embracing them, but it’s really just disguising a morality play, and that’s no good here.  The heart of the matter is revealed by director Roger Kumble in the DVD’s special features, where he explains that he wanted to show nudity around Sebastian to illustrate his nature but cut the scene for fear of us not buying Sebastian’s eventual transformation into a PG-acceptable sweetheart—a direction that, I think, misses the heart of the story.

Elsewhere, we don’t see enough evidence of Sebastian and Annette melting away each other’s icy exteriors, and thus the central romance, vital to the film’s success, doesn’t resonate.  When Sebastian is fretting over his possible missed opportunity, or Annette is flashing back towards previous cutesy scenes, we aren’t emotionally engaged.  That’s not necessarily a knock on the actors, but rather on the script, which tries to fit too much into a 95-minute movie (would another few scenes have killed us?) and doesn’t allow for much character development.  There’s nothing embarrassing, but no dialogue, characters, or scenes really convince us that they’re worthy of our attention.

Brotherly love in New York City.

Brotherly love in New York City.

Phillippe is alright as Sebastian, although I got the feeling that, as the charming playboy, he was too dour—like the film, he doesn’t seem exhilarated by his character’s nature (compare with the wonderfully slimy Ed Westwick as “Gossip Girl’s” Chuck, who oozes an irrational fascination with both himself and his lifestyle).  Gellar too is relatively acceptable as Kathryn (though, again, she lacks Leighton Meester’s zest for bitchiness), as is Witherspoon (who looks more attractive than in anything else I can recall).  But too much credibility is lost with the insipid script, not to mention the ending, wherein both the moral lesson and the death are unnecessary.

One of the film’s best scenes features Kathryn lying on top of Sebastian and shamelessly teasing him, with no intentions of following through, to encourage him to keep his end of the bargain up (in more ways than one)—just the kind of devilishly entertaining moments we needed more of.  There’s another moment where Kathryn teaches Cecile how to French kiss, and by the end, the latter looks like she desperately wants more…and so do we.

Yes Man (2008): It gets a no

Rating: 2 stars (out of 4)

It’s easy to write Yes Man off as “Liar Liar 2″ as so many critics have. But Yes Man, a zany Jim Carrey movie about a man who can’t say no, has a more true and powerful center. Moreso than other high-concept Carrey comedies — Liar Liar, Me Myself and Irene, The Mask, Bruce Almighty — Yes Man contains a relevant, powerful truth at its core: Life is best experienced proactively.

That’s why I wanted to like Yes Man as I was watching it. Certainly, Yes Man is probably a notch or two above the disaster that most newspapers and magazines have it pegged as. But it misses out on greatness, and even goodness, because the film is so poorly executed.

The biggest flaw is that there’s not much to Carrey’s character. I felt no connection with him. I didn’t believe his despair at the beginning, didn’t feel his newfound passion in the middle, and didn’t taste any redemption in the end. Why are he and Bradley Cooper’s character best friends? I see no reason for that relationship other than every main character of a romantic comedy needs a best friend.

As he said yes to anything and everything, I felt like I was watching him read a script, not act. It’s partially his fault, partially the script’s fault. It’s frustrating because I believe this movie could have been so good if the film-makers had just let us feel Carrey’s journey a bit more. Even if Carrey had put a bit more thought into his words and a bit more hurt on his face, I might have been sucked in more.

Another big problem is that the movie doesn’t trust its viewer to think at all. It seems forced to point out everything. Right, we know Carrey would never have met Zooey Deschanel if he hadn’t started saying yes. You already made that pretty obvious, Yes Man, you don’t need to make that point the crux of the climactic speech.

A few of the jokes are really lame, too. The terribly uncomfortable dentures scene should never have been filmed, let alone made it past the editing room. There’s way too much of Rhys Derby’s boss/dorky friend character, who gets old fast.

Easily the best character in the movie is Zooey Deschanel’s. We know from an early encounter that she’s destined to be Carrey’s romantic foil, but she has vivacity in the face of predictability. The spontaneity and adventure-driven life this movie endorses is so much better embodied by her than Carrey, even after Carrey’s transformation.

All in all, I tolerated Yes Man. I didn’t love it, only barely liked it at places, and recognize that it’s far from a great movie. But at times, it’s a fun ride. The best portion is the frenzied second act when we get one set up and payoff after another. It’s the funniest and richest part of the movie. Plus, Carrey and Deschanel play off each other pretty well for the better portion of the movie even though Carrey’s character is underwritten. It’s an uplifting, simple, fun romantic comedy.

The Breakfast Club: They can dish it out, but can they take it?

Since this Labor Day represents the unofficial end of summer and start of the school year, it seems the perfect time to explore a beloved–but imperfect–movie about the difficulties teenagers face at school: 1985′s The Breakfast Club.  This also serves as a partial homage to the recently deceased John Hughes, who wrote and directed numerous quality films in the 1980s.  Further explorations of his movies will follow.
The Brat Pack, in all their glory
The Brat Pack, in all their glory

Rating: two 1/2 stars (out of four)

John Hughes’s The Breakfast Clubhas become something of a cult classic in the decades since its 1985 release, equaling or surpassing other pictures from this talented writer, at least in the public’s eye.  In it, five high school students, who conveniently represent a few of their student body’s cliques, have been forced to spend one precious Saturday in detention.  There’s the jock, Andrew (Emilio Estevez); the princess, Claire (Molly Ringwald); the brain, Brian (Anthony Michael Hall); the weirdo, Allison (Ally Sheedy); and the criminal, Bender (Judd Nelson).

As a film, The Breakfast Cluboccupies a critical point in movie history.  The actors were all “Brat Pack” regulars—for Hughes favorite Ringwald, this bracketed Sixteen Candles and Pretty in Pink, and Sheedy, Nelson, and Estevez would star, with others, in the awful St. Elmo’s Fire later the same year.  As Roger Ebert pointed out, it’s an “all-star cast” of younger actors, and the film is worth watching for anyone about to enter high school, but not as much as, say, Mean Girls.  Ultimately, it’s a frustrating, contradictory movie, not nearly as consistent as other Hughes works Sixteen Candles and Ferris Bueller’s Day Off or as heartwarming as Planes, Trains, and Automobiles.   

The stereotypical classifications of the main characters are meant to represent both the way the school principal Richard Vernon (Paul Gleason) and their fellow inmates view them.  The entire movie takes place at school during the day, almost all of that inside the library, where these five challenge each other’s misconceptions of themselves.  Learning tolerance, Hughes tells us, is a lot easier when you want others to view you more sympathetically. 

The de facto leader of the group is Bender, the obnoxious, loud, arrogant, and generally rebellious student who manages to infuriate everyone within about 15 minutes.  Bender, though not uninteresting, is a bit of a contrived character.  Judd Nelson does what he can with the character, and it’s not unrealistic for a high school detention to feature someone like him, but some of his antics feel forced, thrown in by Hughes to keep the plot moving.  

Though I’ll give the movie credit for not going the route of The Graduateby refusing to anoint the adults with first names, it’s difficult to deny that the principal is a hopeless caricature.  I suppose that’s the point, but it makes for quite a one-sided viewpoint.  Some of the things Vernon says to Bender have merit—in particular “You ought to spend a little more time trying to do something with yourself and a little less time trying to impress people.”—but it’s tough to take them seriously when he follows them with a promise to start “cracking skulls” the next time they misbehave.  Likewise, his fighting words to Bender later on in the film feel as out of place as the fight between Richard Gere and Lou Gossett at the end of An Officer and a Gentleman.  Andrew fighting Bender makes sense; the principal taunting him doesn’t.

A more balanced perspective is shown towards the faceless parents of the students.  Though everyone, naturally, professes to not get along with his or hers—If I said that I did, says Andrew, “you’d think I was an idiot.”—they’re not necessarily the problems in the kids’ lives.  Brian, we can infer, has supportive, loving parents; they may be overly concerned about grades, or he may just think they’re overly concerned about grades.  Likewise, Claire doesn’t like her parents, but it becomes clear that she has bigger issues with her friends and her school. 

A little less credible, though, are the personas of Andrew’s father, who demands athletic success from him, or Bender’s, who abuses him.  Those stock types could be believable if the film did something with them, but they’re just slipped in towards the end to try to make us view each person a little more sympathetically.

Hughes adds a few nice touches along the way to keep things interesting.  I admire his willingness to keep the entire film moderately paced, in one setting, with no special effects whatsoever.  I also like the use of music, as the students dance, whistle, or air guitar to the songs playing in the background.  Credit is also due to his inclusion of one of my favorite characters in movies, period, the “weirdo” played by Ally Sheedy.  The film’s most satisfying moments almost all involve her—when she empties her bag onto a couch and explains its contents, when she reveals why she’s in detention (a truly fantastic moment), and when Claire transforms her appearance to uncover physical beauty that had lain dormant.

Unfortunately, the film doesn’t manage to quite transform anyone emotionally quite as much.  Because of its lack of special effects and series of conversations between people attempting to get under the other’s skin, it reminded me in some ways of Closer, but it manages to convey neither that film’s great sense of atmosphere and mood nor its heart.  Closer revealed the emotional breaking points of all of its characters, but nothing in The Breakfast Club strikes that deeply.  My love for Ally notwithstanding, I can’t deny that we don’t really get to know anyone that well. 

And Hughes, though he makes some good choices, adds too many distractions to the story.  In my opinion, the film never should have left the library once the principal put them in there.  By giving us Bender running around the school and needless conversations with the principal and janitor, Hughes ruins the atmosphere of the film.  I liken this to Cast Away, which would have crashed and burned if Robert Zemeckis had ever cut away from Tom Hanks while he was on the island to go back to Memphis.  Hughes spends about 90% of the time in the library and suddenly decides to roam to the principal’s office, the gymnasium, and Bender’s locker; a bolder move would have been to keep the students in one place the whole time.

The Breakfast Club also falters because its writing is not perfectly sharp.  When Claire is berating Bender for his refusal to get involved in the school, she expresses scorn for the academic clubs of which Brian is a member, and Hughes misses the opportunity for Bender to point out the hypocrisy in Claire’s viewpoint.  This is microcosmic of the film’s problems: a few of the conversations that take place are substantive—addressing sex, cliques, popularity, authority—but the movie never really goes anywhere with them.  I never got the impression that the students have learned anything or changed in any meaningful way from their day.  When Claire eventually falls for Bender, for example, it doesn’t feel like something stemming from a change in her attitude towards him; it just feels like a sudden and unexplained plot twist.  There has been little previously to indicate that her feelings for him have softened.    

It may seem as though I dislike this film, but the truth is that I point out its flaws only because it intrigues me so much.  I think it could have been a great film, but instead it’s merely decent.  I love the set-up, and I laugh out loud numerous times in it.  I can relate, at least partially, to Brian, Andrew, and Ally, and Nelson’s Bender eventually turns around from being a mere simpleton to the character least afraid of telling the truth.  His comeback to Claire about supposedly not having any purpose at the school has real bite, and even if his parents represent a bit of a stereotype, Nelson just about makes it work, thanks to his spot-on acting in scenes such as the one when he describes his last Christmas: “It was a banner fucking year at the old Bender family.  I got a carton of cigarettes–the old man grabbed me and said, ‘Hey, smoke up, Johnny.’” 

Such scenes have edginess and power.  Unfortunately, the resolutions are somewhat pat and underdeveloped, which is why The Breakfast Club is best enjoyed with low expectations; otherwise you won’t be able to shake its tentativeness and unwillingness to make a strong statement.  There is a moment when the five students discuss whether they’ll view each other differently come Monday—but I’m not so sure they will.  The likelihood that Hughes is making a statement with that fact is all but impossible.

Friday Night Lights: Football, not life

September has arrived, and the weather seems to be starting to cool down, which means that it’s finally time for some football.  High schools are the first to start playing (there’s still another agonizing week before the NFL season kicks off), so this Friday is a perfect time to highlight the best football movie that I’ve ever seen.  Let the games begin…

Rating: three 1/2 stars (out of four)

“When you’re famous at 18, you spend the rest of your life fading away.”

The lead character of John Grisham’s delightful novella Bleachers spoke those words, and they apply perfectly to the attitudes explored in Friday Night Lights, which concerns the same material as that book: high school football.  This time, the focus is on not only the team but also the suffocating culture that surrounds it.  Based on H.G. Bissinger’s book chronicling the 1988 season of the Permian Panthers of Odessa, Texas, Lights excels with traits that rarely come with football movies.  Indeed, it’s hardly a sports movie at all (just like how the Bournes are much more than spy flicks) but rather a realistic, emotive, beautifully-acted film that’s about the lives of its characters.  Although the yawningly overwrought description on the back cover doesn’t reflect it, the film cares about a lot more than the success of its team.

The movie is unflinching in its depiction of the town.  Director Peter Berg uses washed-out colors to make the landscape look even more barren, helping us to at least partially understand why everyone you meet is so obsessed with the only thing that gives their area fame.  The Panthers are the winningest high school team in Texas history, with four state championships to their name, but that matters little in the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately culture.  Football is the easiest way to make someone in Odessa happy, yet because of the way the town approaches it, it collectively sucks all the joy out of it.  Note the grim expression on the face of quarterback Mike Winchell (Lucas Black) when college recruiters tell him the game is supposed to be fun.  Media frenzies surround the first practice of summer, and when the father of a player (played by Tim McGraw) comes out onto the field to castigate him for fumbling, people stare, but no one stops him.  Eventually, a player steps in to say, “Please…it’s the first day of practice,” as if to say that such an outburst would be permissible when the team was supposed to be in mid-season form.

Most sports movies are by definition ensemble pieces, but there’s generally a hero to root for, namely the coach or quarterback.  Lights is even more egalitarian—no one could be considered the star.  The movie focuses mostly on third-year coach Gary Gaines (Billy Bob Thornton), Winchell, star running back Boobie Miles (Derek Luke), and fullback Don Billingsley (Garrett Hedlund), and it almost sneaks up on you in the way it fully develops its storylines with grace and intelligence.  Billinsgley, for example, has to deal with his abusive father, still living his life based on his high school glory days.  When Don keeps fumbling, his father takes out the anger that stems from his dead-end life on him.  But he isn’t the devil, just a misguided, alcoholic man who’s been burned out by life—who’s been fading away since 18—and assumes that the same will happen to his son after high school.  McGraw subsumes himself into the role and delivers a heart-wrenching performance.

FNL simply excels in its depiction of the characters’ struggles with holding onto any measure of joy amidst the despairing situation in which they live.  Black, an asset in All the Pretty Horses, effectively presents a hesitant quarterback who isn’t sure he wants to leave the town because of his mother’s ill health.  Boobie, excellently played by Luke, carries not only the expectations of the town but also the burden of being the team’s centerpiece.  He’s effectively lost for the season to injury in the first game, yet he and his uncle do all they can to avoid listening to doctors.  There’s an emotionally stunning scene when he sits in a car after clearing out his locker and realizes that he has never planned on a life that doesn’t include football.

Thornton’s coach regards the football obsession with a bit of bemusement, as he understands that a loss isn’t the end of a pursuit of happiness.  He is an atypical movie coach, neither a tough guy in the mold of Denzel Washington’s character in Remember the Titans nor a “players’ coach.”  Thornton, whose performance is the epitome of controlled yet evocative acting, says more with his eyes than words, but Gaines does give the Panthers the best speech I’ve ever heard in a sports movie.  At halftime of the state championship, knowing that the game represents the end of the football era of his players’ lives, he doesn’t try to make them believe they can do anything.  He just says, “Put each other in your hearts forever, because forever’s about to happen out here in a few minutes.”

How refreshing it is to reach the final scenes of a sports movie and be concerned with things other than a game’s outcome.  Panther wins don’t generate much emotion–they’re expected and accepted, but not experienced the way losses are.  Thus, if you understand by the end that Friday Night Lights has nobler goals than most sports movies, you won’t find the conclusion surprising.  And just as a critical mid-season loss leads to important conversations between Gaines and Winchell and Billingsley and his father, the climactic heartbreak allows the characters to show who they truly are.  As another magnificent piece of the soundtrack (which is mostly from masterful conceptualists Explosions in the Sky and Daniel Lanois) mourns with the players and fans, Billingsley’s father walks onto the football field and completes his character’s arc, making everything that came before meaningful.  And in the process, he gives us what is, without question, the strongest and most emotional moment I’ve ever seen in a sports movie–and one of the best in any, regardless of type.

Most sports movies try to lift you to the rafters based on the athletic talents of the players on screen; here is the rare one that does so based on the inherent quality of its filmmaking, based on the feelings generated by things like the last smile on Winchell’s face and the shocking postscript.  A win for the Panthers is a relief, not a triumph.  Friday Night Lights is the latter.

Dark City (1998): The thinking man’s Matrix

vlcsnap-3441495

Rating: 3.5 stars (out of 4)

I’ll assume whoever reads this has seen The Matrix. According to IMDb, it’s not only one of the most beloved movies of this generation, but one of the most widely seen. If you haven’t seen it, you’re in for a treat; though Keanu Reeves’ acting is a bit stiff, and there are parts of the script I’m skeptical about, it’s one of the most exciting sci-fi movies ever released.

The key word there is “exciting.” It’s not the same as “good.” Just to clarify, I do think the Matrix is a GOOD movie. In fact, a GREAT one. But there are other things a movie can do besides get the blood pumping.

One movie it’s easy to compare The Matrix to is Dark City, which you’re much less likely to have seen. It came out one year before the Matrix and was directed by Alex Proyas. The two films tell basically the same story but in very different styles. (For the record, I don’t believe that The Matrix stole anything from Dark City — as is often accused by Dark City fans — as The Matrix was probably well in to production by the time Dark City came out.)

Dark City is a tremendous film. As soon as I saw it the first time, I wanted to see it again. As soon as I saw it the second time, I still wanted to see it again; but in the name of saving time I decided just to skip around the DVD and visit my favorite parts. Though I don’t hold it as close to my heart as I do The Matrix, I think it holds its own and, by many measurements, is a “better” movie than The Wachowski’s film.

vlcsnap-3443885

If film study terms like “deep focus” mean anything to you, then you’ll probably find a lot to love in Dark City. The designs seem largely based on expressionism, with sharp angles and exaggerated images filling the screen. This melds with a distinct noir-feel and strange sets that feel like they’re stuck straddling the Double Indemnity and Twelve Monkeys.

Even if the previous paragraph means almost nothing to you, you’ll get sucked in by the movie’s brooding story and haunting visuals. We viewers can detect from the start that there’s something artificial about the world, but the way that set-up unfolds is absolutely fascinating and, at times, thrilling. Dark City is old-fashioned, and its CGI is about a tenth as convincing as The Matrix’s, yet attentive film-making and a good story — which Dark Story has in bushels — are always rewarding.

There are scenes in this film that are beautifully shot, and it’s not just the major set pieces. Some of the most complicated, detailed shots are only on screen for a second or two and do something simple, like establish that a character is walking somewhere or sitting in a room.

vlcsnap-2799612

Dark City also digs deeper into its underlying thematic questions than The Matrix. At times when I’m watching The Matrix, I feel like the characters are spouting philosophical mumbo-jumbo. In Dark City, the characters actually talk like you’d expect someone in a fake world to talk. The revelations don’t come one after another in rapid-fire, so they feel earned.

Another treat for film fans will be how reverently Dark City references old crime and sci-fi films. My relatively untrained eye caught references to at least a half dozen films I’ve seen, all of which were integrated to the film scrupulously.

vlcsnap-3450461

One last reason to watch the film is that it has a Roger Ebert commentary along with a commentary by the director and several members of production. I listened to most of Ebert’s commentary, and it lives to up his reputation for absolutely phenomenal insight and attention to detail.

The movie’s not without flaws. I’m not a fan of how memories and minds are depicted as simple devices. I also think Kiefer Sutherland’s performance is too exaggerated.  His weird vocal tics get old fast and distracted me as the movie was advancing the plot several times. The effects are also shockingly inferior to other high-budget films. These complaints all end up being minor; by the time the stunning, ambiguous ending rolled around, I had forgotten any sentiment besides appreciation for Dark City.

I recommend Dark City to just about anyone. I won’t guarantee you’ll enjoy it as much as The Matrix (I certianly didn’t). But if you enjoy thoughtful, quieter movies and pay close attention to it, it might compete.

The Departed: Gangsters and cohesive plots are both lost

Departed

Rating: two stars (out of four)

It’s not hard to see why The Departed drew such strong acclaim.  It features a well-known cast of actors, even down to the nominal supporting roles, and is directed by a Hollywood favorite, Martin Scorsese.  Its plot concerns the well-mined territory of mobsters and cops facing off against each other, and the screenplay sparkles with some witty dialogue and clever insults.  Yet something feels terribly off here: though it’s intriguing and endlessly entertaining, it doesn’t feel like much of a movie in retrospect.  Repeated viewings reveal not just plot holes but plot impossibilities; and the movie, laced with flippancy and levity, doesn’t seem to take itself seriously enough for its subject matter.

A remake of the 2002 Hong Kong movie Infernal Affairs, the movie centers on the Massachusetts State Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit, headed by Captain Queenan (Martin Sheen), and its attempt to thwart a gang headed by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson).  The set-up is loaded with promise: each group has infiltrated a mole into the other’s inner circle.  Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) grew up around nothing but criminals.  Perhaps because of this, he wants to be a cop, but Queenan and his second-in-command Dignam (Mark Wahlberg) decide that his background makes him a perfect fit to be a mole inside Costello’s circle.

On the other hand, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) was raised a proper church-goer on the good side of town; perhaps because of this, he’s susceptible to Costello’s fatherly guidance during his youth.  Costello grooms Sullivan from youth to be his mole within the police unit (one of them, anyway).  The bulk of the movie follows DiCaprio and Damon trying to oust each other before they’re found.  In the meantime, Damon’s Sullivan is appointed as the internal affairs cop within the SUI, being asked to look for Costello’s mole—to find himself.  A psychiatrist named Madolyn (Vera Farmiga) gets involved with both men and further entangles the plot.

The potential for a great movie is here, but The Departed doesn’t deliver on its promises.  Its weak script is manifest in an overly flippant tone and terrible plot holes.  The film is far too slick for it’s own good, failing to achieve any level of gravitas.  It’s more concerned with telling us how funny Mark Wahlberg is, or how outrageous Nicholson’s props are, and it’s impossible to take The Departed seriously when it is so amused with itself.  It’s no coincidence that it couldn’t have taken place without present day technology (such as text messaging), because it reflects present culture’s fascination with overly-stylized, soulless, superficial products, ranging from TV shows to music to movies.  Yet everyone, from critics to the general public, mixed up the slickness and the comedy and the violence into a blender and assumed something pure came out.  Oh, look, Captain Queenan just fell hundreds of feet to his death, aren’t Martin Scorsese films just so gritty!

We live in an age when a movie can succeed with a few demonstrative moments even when it does very little thinking, because apparently audiences don’t care if a stiff breeze would collapse the plot.  Why, for example, does Sullivan make secret calls to Costello while walking through the halls of the police headquarters; and why does Costigan make secret calls to Queenan just a few feet out of range of his comrades?  How does nobody hear the numerous gunshots occurring in the showdown between Sullivan and  Costello until the former announces their whereabouts, and why was he even allowed to go after Costello alone?  I couldn’t really buy Costigan’s first defiance of Costello (leading up to his tryst with Madolyn), or the fact that the Chinese would have let Costello get away with his swindling.  But I was probably the most annoyed by the potentially fascinating street chase between Costigan and Sullivan fizzling into nothingness because the former’s phone rang to announce an incoming text—when he had just minutes before been receiving texts that caused the phone to vibrate.

Scorsese pumps the movie full of energy and color, which at times works to its advantage, as it’s endlessly watchable and full of some riveting scenes, such as the sequence leading up to Queenan’s death and the ultimate rooftop confrontation between Costigan and Sullivan.  Other times he tries too hard, as evidenced in the overly frequent use of music that likes to cut off sharply to make a point.  But it’s William Monahan’s script that truly sinks the film and makes it leave a bad taste in your mouth afterwards.

The script lays things out nicely enough at the outset, but it does take a while for the energy level to really rise, and the character development throughout leaves a lot to be desired.  Madolyn’s relationships with the two men don’t ever boil over into anything substantive, which is a shame, because, if nothing else, she represented a solid opportunity to flesh out their characters.  The film has to ascribe impotence to Sullivan to enable her to become interested in Costigan—an unlikely story, to be sure—and when she walks away from Sullivan in anger at a funeral, the film misses the obvious chance for her to deliver a devastating line.  And when Sullivan tells Costello that he’ll succeed at a task because “it involves lying, and I’m pretty good at that,” the line sounds so off that one suspects that its inclusion must only predict Madolyn later hearing it.

Elsewhere, as the film accelerates towards its climax, it is indeed intriguing to watch Sullivan try to make legitimate attempts to find the mole hidden within SUI.  But, too often, the film has to resort to its characters acting stupidly for things to fall into place.  Costello, for example, is way too naïve in his attempts to figure out Costigan’s loyalties: he foolishly assumes that if Sullivan hasn’t heard something in the office, Costigan couldn’t have given away his secrets, a particularly narrow-minded attitude especially considering that Sullivan knows that Queenan refuses to divulge any information about his undercovers.

On and on the contradictions go, particularly in one titillating but frustrating sequence wherein Costigan has his therapy session and flashes back to a meeting with Queenan and Dignam under a bridge.  You want to revel in DiCaprio’s acting and the sharpness of his words (“Two pills?  Great…why don’t you just give me a bottle of Scotch and a handgun to blow my fucking brains out!  Are we done with this psychiatry bullshit?”) but Farmiga’s struggles to find realism throw some cold water over the dream state.  And you can’t enjoy the encounter with Queenan and Dignam because of Dignam’s idiotic threat to erase the only proof remaining that Costigan’s a cop—as though you would say something like that to someone whose dangerous undercover service you wanted to continue.

 

DiCaprio and Damon clash in the film's best scene.

DiCaprio and Damon clash in the film's best scene.

The film’s acting garnered the same effusive praise that the whole film did, but it’s uneven.  Farmiga looks awkward and out of her league as Madolyn, but a lot of the supporting characters do fine work, namely Alec Baldwin, Sheen, and Ray Winstone (as Costello’s number one).  However, two pivotal characters grate.  Wahlberg’s Dignam delivers a few amusing insults (“I’m the guy who does his job—you must be the other guy.”) but by the end, both the character and the performance remain so one-dimensional it almost becomes caricature.  There’s an irritating scene where Costigan is trying to talk to him from an airport about something constructive, and he can’t do anything but blow him off.

And Jack  Nicholson, though he looks the part, is so over-the-top that he’s wholly unbelievable.  Nearly every line and ridiculous facial expression (note the mimicking of a rat) Nicholson delivers with Oscar-seeking relish—he’s far more Nicholson, with all of his patented showiness and egotism, than Frank Costello.

Amidst all this, there is one redeeming aspect: Leonardo DiCaprio, who bumps it up a half-star or so.  Costello may be the brain of the movie, but DiCaprio is the heart.  DiCaprio’s Costigan slowly unravels over the anxiety his double life causes him, and he is so fantastic that you don’t stop to wonder how good he could have been if Nicholson (or Farmiga) had shown up.  Costigan’s tough on the outside, and he’s tougher on the inside than you might expect shortly into the movie.

DiCaprio unearths all the subtlety in a startlingly loaded, blistering performance.  In my review of The Basketball Diaries, I wrote that DiCaprio was “so good, it’s frankly a little scary,” and it’s the mark of a great actor that with each role he expands his repertoire and just gets better and better.  DiCaprio is so riveting here that he tops everything he’s done before, even his outstanding turn in Blood Diamond.  He officially grew up in 2006; no longer the impossibly young-looking teenage boy who melted girls’ hearts in Titanic or felt Robert De Niro’s wrath in This Boy’s Life, he’s now a man.

Sadly, Colin doesn’t measure up to Costigan, for various reasons.  He’s not nearly as interesting or well fleshed-out as Billy is.  Often, indeed, the motivations for his actions are unclear.  Is he, for example, truly evil, or has he just been brainwashed since a young age to protect Costello from getting caught?  The film doesn’t bother to investigate.

Damon, for his part, is effortlessly natural in his scenes with Madolyn, but too often something felt a little off with him—his mannerisms a little too histrionic, even a little feminine.  When pressed into fierceness–as in the rooftop scene–he knows what to do; but on the whole this has to rank as a disappointing turn from one of my favorite actors.

The Departed, as a whole, has lots of style and little substance—and the truly disappointing fact is that the movie doesn’t aim for any more than that.  DiCaprio brings the necessary gravitas, but most of the film doesn’t.  It’s just the kind of movie Hollywood loves these days, but in the end it’s just full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

A Goofy Movie (1995) – Why it deserves to be considered a Disney classic

vlcsnap-9708540

Rating: 4 stars (out of 4)

A Goofy Movie is the outcast of the 1995 Disney movies. It was not nearly as acclaimed as Toy Story nor as popular as Pocahontas. Because it was made by Disney Toon studios and is an extension of an already-established property, it wasn’t even inducted into the official animated Disney canon. Yet, this is an animated movie that deserves a cult-like following and should be passed on to the next generation the way many of the mid-90s Disney classics will be.

What really makes A Goofy Movie stand out from others of the generation is how different its primary conflict is from any movies in the official Disney canon. It’s about the delicate, tenuous relationship between an independence-seeking adolescent and a well-meaning parent. Watching the movie again a couple of days ago, I was struck how balanced and fair the movie portrayed both sides.

Though he’s the weaker and more stereotypical of the two main characters, Max is still pretty relatable and sympathetic. He’s shown as shy and unpopular but has an appealing confidence. What teenage guy hasn’t dreamed of pulling some grand, rebellious act to win the heart of a girl? I’m not entirely sure how he ever expected to pull off his stunt without getting busted, or what the specific goals were, besides impressing Roxanne — still, the assembly is an impressive and exciting sequence in the film.

I also empathized with Max’s embarrassment towards his father. Every teenager has felt like their dad is Goofy at some point. The movie really captures how nauseatingly difficult it can be to deal with family life when your mind is on growing up.

vlcsnap-9706263

Though I like Max, the heart of this movie belongs to Goofy. For a character conceived as bumbling, slapstick comic relief, he’s a convincing single dad. Though he’s a bit out of touch with his son’s life, he has a strong, palpable love for Max. He’s vulnerable, confused, and willing to learn as a father.

The theme of parenting is thoroughly explored by the movie. We see the disciplinarian style used by Pete on PJ clash with the laid-back approach Goofy uses on Max. The movie thankfully doesn’t present a definitive correct answer to its central question: What’s the right way to parent a teenager? Pete isn’t shown as a bad father so much as an overbearing one. The distance Goofy gives his son isn’t villified either. Since the movie is largely about parenting, the balanced conclusion — Max maintaining his independence but making space in his life for his father — is satisfying.

Contrary to what most of the negative reviews say, A Goofy Movie has no flaws so glaring that they really hamper the movie. One aspect of the movie I consider a flaw is how unsympathetic and unbelievable the principal is. He’s not just comic relief, either: His absurd, over-the-top phone call with Goofy drives a the core conflict.

Next, the culminating concert scene is a bit on the unbelievable side when compared to rest of the film. The scene is so much fun that I don’t really mind, but I can buy the argument that the climax exceeds the boundary of realism set up by the film.

Another of the movie’s flaws is also one of its traits that makes it so lovable. Compared to the archetypal Disney classics, there’s nothing enormous at stake. A high school crush, a date to a party, and a lie to a parent don’t seem like much when life and death are on the line in The Lion King or Beauty and the Beast.

vlcsnap-9707431

But this makes for a strangely more realistic animated movie. Most of life is spent fighting little battles, many of which are small skirmishes in larger wars. Deep down, this movie is less about a wacky road trip and more about growing up, developing strong family relationships, and establishing an identity. The stakes don’t seem high on the surface, but the undercurrents of A Goofy Movie are just as powerful as the Disney animated fairy tales that everyone remembers.

Though the movie has substance, what really makes the movie tick is its tremendous comic timing. The only animated Disney movies that pack as many laughs as this are The Emperor’s New Groove and Hercules, and both of those are longer than this 78-minute film.

If you own the movie, go back and watch the scene where Roxanne’s dad first answers the door, the encounter with Big Foot, the car explosion at the end, or the visit to Lester’s Possum Park. They’re bizarre and hilarious and straight out of the imagination.

vlcsnap-9705332

In particular, I want to commend the visit to Lester’s. The visit to the Chuck-E-Cheese ripoff shows the movie’s excellent use of sound for comic effect. The actual yodel song is comically pathetic, the little girl sitting next to Max has a great moment when she sings along in an atonal voice, and the scene makes good use of sound and laughter to heighten Max’s embarrassment. It’s a rather impressive (and funny) few minutes of animation.

The movie also has a visual energy and grace. The pastely colors and scenes are delightful. With a few exceptions (such as the excellent river sequence), the locales aren’t as stunning as the ones in Pocahontas or The Lion King, but the movie makes the best of what it has.

The uses of close-ups are particularly excellent, often evoking a particularly intense emotion. Consider the zoom-in on the principal as he rats out Max to Goofy, the opening dream sequence, Max hurriedly changing the map, Max approaching Roxanne during the assembly, and more.

vlcsnap-9703616

Ultimately, it’s the details and playfulness in the movie that makes it such a delight every time I re-visit it. Every time through I notice something different. (A few details I noticed this time: the large lady in the convertible during the road trip is the vocalist in the concert, the nuns are at the monster truck show, the nerd who cheers for Stacy has a Star Trek shirt, and the ditzy-looking girl Max passes in the hall is also at Stacy’s party.) A Goofy Movie has a silly, fun tone throughout most of the movie, but has legs as a family drama, too.

A Goofy Movie is a hugely underrated animated Disney movie, and a classic in my book. Though not a part of the official Disney canon, it deserves to be remembered with the same reverence as many of those classics are. The delicate father-son relationship gives the movie humanity but the comic energy and timing keep the film afloat and enjoyable. It’s well-made, with a sharp attention to detail, and it captures the hormones and battles of adolescence with a very honest, balanced eye. Give it a shot if you enjoy animated movies.