Review: W. & Max Payne

Presidential Duties

The idea for this film almost sounds like a joke. A movie about one of the most conservative and, at this point, unpopular presidents of our age that is directed by a filmmaker who has made it no secret how far left his vote will swing. And the timing of this film, to come out while the subject is still sitting behind the desk at the White House while an election attempts to distract the rest of us. All of this seems to add up to a movie that is destined to fail. W. is a film that, at many times, has the potential to slip and fall. Surprisingly, it manages to keep its feet on the ground and offer up a different perspective on a man you thought you knew.

Josh Brolin, hot off the double whammy success of American Gangster and the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men last year, plays the title character (I believe the title's official pronunciation is "dub-ya"). Bush is taken on a wild roller coaster ride that shows his humble beginnings as a drunk trying to earn the respect of his father (James Cromwell) who eventually woos a respectable woman (Elizabeth Banks), then steps out of his father's shadow to become a born again Christian and run for governor, and eventually the White House. The rest, as they say, is history the next guy will have to deal with.

Oliver Stone would, at first, seem like the perfect choice to make a film about Republican president that many liberal entertainers have disagreed with. However, Stone takes a very different approach with this film. The film doesn't shy away from Bush's rowdy past, and it's the type of ammunition that one would expect Stone to have in his arsenal. The portrait he paints of Bush, however, is much more sympathetic (even more so than Nixon). Stone makes Bush out to be a product of his environment: from the arguments with his father, to his battle with alcoholism, to the influences and misinformation from the members of his cabinet. Stone doesn't excuse the actions that Bush has done, but he gives us a bigger picture of how he came to those decisions and shows that the blame may need to go around more people than just one. Stone creates a relatively even tone, and the screenplay by Stanley Weiser is very appealing, though I wish some characters didn't speak about Iraq like they're talking in hindsight.

Brolin is an incredible actor, and he proves it once again here. To me, it is the perfect balance of imitation and acting. Bush has certain mannerisms that are a staple to any impression, but Brolin doesn't pile it on and turn the film into an extended SNL skit. His Bush is a real person, and there is never a false sense of character when Brolin is acting. He actually draws us into this character more than we thought we would have. To be honest, none of the actors really resemble the real people they play, but I think that's a good thing. The towering James Cromwell isn't like Dana Carvey, but he makes Bush Sr. a sympathetic character as well. I dare anyone not to be moved in some way after witnessing his reaction to his loss of the 1992 presidential election. Richard Dreyfuss also adds more to the film, making Dick Cheney a man who worked more behind the scenes than one might realize. Even players like Toby Jones as Karl Rove and Jeffery Wright as Colin Powell are great additions. Two performers I didn't click with were a miscast Thandie Newton, who put too much emphasis on Condelezza Rice's voice, and, God love her, Ellen Burnstyn who acts a little too soap-operay as a nagging Barbra Bush.

To return to this thought, it is Weiser's screenplay that hurts the film at points, and Stone's return to the melodramatic metaphors don't help either. Some scenes do appear out of place, and Weiser and Stone would argue they are essential to understanding Bush. The prime example would be the continuing reference of Bush in the middle of a baseball diamond with the screaming of unseen fans roaring in the bleechers. At times, these are moments that enforce an idea that was already boiling to the top in other scenes, and often times they take the momentum out of the film. They are intriguing scenes to watch, but not for as long as the movie lets us.

The timing of this film is unbelievable. Because Bush has yet to leave office, we do not get that scene where he's a seventy-five-year-old man sitting in his rocking chair on his farm in Texas talking to an even older Cheney about the mistakes and triumphs of his presidency. But I don't think we need that scene because, in essence, we don't care what happens next. The film isn't about predicting the future anyway; it's about piecing together the past. Stone, I think, has finally grown up as a filmmaker, not really becoming more conventional, but he doesn't have the same rebellious spirit that a younger filmmaker might have had. I think that's an improvement, because I don't believe a younger Stone would have been able to make a film that paints this man in such a sympathetic portrait before. Much to the thanking of Brolin's great performance, the film might make you think a little harder about the man that this country has spent eight years despising who did all he could to please us. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-



Pain's the Game

It's tough for video game movies these days. No matter what, it seems like they're all destined to fail. I mean, just look at their track record: Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Doom, none of them worked. Even the only one that happened to succeed slightly, Mortal Kombat, was a very mild success. Still, the point is that they keep making money, despite the critical bashing they receive. I feel that's a shame because it gives people excuses to make this type of film, which is a rancid, nonsensical piece of garbage that drives one to the brink of insanity.

Mark Wahlberg is all frowns and faces in the title role that is, again, based on the popular video game. I don't really know why it's so popular, since the story is another Death Wish rip-off that shows police detective Max Payne, recently assigned to cold cases, who now prowls the streets searching for the ones responsible for the murder of his wife and daughter three years ago. His journey into crime's underworld has him facing off a femme fetal (Mila Kunis), a drugged up gangster (Amaury Nolasco) and an evil company, whose head of security (Beau Bridges) used to work with his father on the force.

Notice that I didn't mention any major plot elements. That's because I didn't care what the plot was, and neither will you. However, I didn't care what it was because it made absolutely no sense, even for a film based on a video game. The story meanders and weaves in and out of different areas until the whole thing is a jumbled mess that carries on for far too long. In the unimpressive hands of John Moore (Behind Enemy Lines, Flight of the Phoenix (2004) and The Omen (2006) are some of his "highlights") the film is shot in a way over the top fashion. Not the fun kind of over the top, but the kind that overcompensates for an embarrassingly weak story (i.e. Wanted). It may have been Moore who bragged about the film's use of slow motion "bullet cam" or whatever it was called, but what it really does it disappoint on an immense scale for making the movie seem more ridiculously over the top than it already had been up to that point, such as when Payne gets nearly twenty shots off his pistol without even reloading once.

It would be an understatement to say that Beau Thorne's script is riddled with wooden dialogue and mediocre set pieces, but ever character is written as if they are the first of their kind: the disgruntled ex-cop, the mysterious head of the company, her ostracised serf of an assistant, and so on and so on, and then these characters go over the top in every scene. It's even sadder that the whole film feels that way, whether it's the overtly shadowy lighting from Jonathan Sela, overly dramatic score from Marco Beltrami, or the deafening sound effects track that make The Incredible Hulk sound like this year's lullaby.

However, the misuse of its cast is the most depressing aspect of the film. It's not bad acting, it's unfulfilling and wasted acting (sorta like saying, "I'm not mad; I'm disappointed.") After years of showing his pretty face and well sculpted body, Wahlberg was finally able to offer his personality in the hands of a brilliant director and contorted it until we got him in a riveting role that amplified his acting abilities without showboating it. That's why Wahlberg got a gratifying Oscar nomination for Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Now, it's like Whalberg has returned to the roles that plagued him years before, adding absolutely no emotion to this character to make him a figure to watch. But it's the appearances from people like Kunis, Bridges and Chris Bridges (a.k.a. Ludacris) that really bring the film down. They're talented actors, like Wahlberg, only they believe they can elevate the material; I never got the feeling Wahlberg had that same mentality. To seem them in this movie is painful because they are trying to work with material that doesn't work with them back. It's a great waste of talent that is also peppered by the occasional bad acting (Nolasco and Chris O'Donnell, two actors I usually like, go past the status of cult favorite to just horrid).

It's an action movie based on a video game, and with that, there are certain things you have to accept that will not be a focal point, like plot. But even for an action film, the movie still feels flat. Not only is it completely implausible, but it's an action movie with no action. That is, there is never any momentum in the movie and every scene remains in stasis, with no help from its director or underdeveloped cast. I didn't think that I could find a movie that would top insanely bad 88 Minutes as the year's worst film. But that was before I met Max. ZERO STARS / ****; GRADE: F