Review: White House Down

Let’s get the comparison out of the way.  Olympus Has Fallen is a better movie than White House Down.  In what has to represent career lows for both Jamie Foxx and Channing Tatum, the duo have been outdone in the presidential catastrophe genre by the non-immortal Gerard Butler.  But in the interest of keeping things real, let me say that comparing these two movies is the equivalent of comparing Burger King and McDonald’s; both are almost equally terrible and in the long run will probably kill you.  It’s just that the stench from White House Down is a bit more pungent.

The plot of this latest movie from director Roland Emmerich finds former Marine Cale (played by Channing Tatum) looking to earn a job with the Secret Service and win the respect of his daughter (Joey King) while on a trip to the White House.  When a band of domestic terrorists unleash an assault on the White House in an effort to take the President and wreak political havoc, Cale is forced to take action in order to save both the Commander-in-Chief and his own daughter.

Clearly Emmerich and writer James Vanderbilt (The Amazing Spider-Man) are completely eschewing realism for this movie, but that should neither come as any surprise nor is it the kiss of death.  The problem here is that White House Down is the continuation of a downward spiral for Emmerich, who once upon a time knew how to deliver actions movies that were short on intelligence and long on fun.  More recently his films (2012, 10,000 BC) have shown his transformation into a caricature of himself as a director with action sequences that seem poorly planned and the kind of schlocky sentimentality that could send someone into sugar shock. 

Making matters worse are Channing Tatum and Jamie Foxx who act as gasoline to the flame that is Emmerich’s direction.  In my opinion Tatum is Mark Wahlberg redux – an actor who is funny (in a big goon kind of way a la 21 Jump Street), but is hard to take serious in any other kind of role.  He is only passably believable as a former Marine turned Cop, but has no credibility as a divorced father.  Sure, writer James Vanderbilt is feeding him terrible lines, but it feels like Tatum is making no attempt to exude any kind of charisma while delivering them.  Normally, I would call this a paycheck film for an actor, but with Tatum it’s really hard to distinguish because acting is not really his strong suit.

Then there is Jamie Foxx, who I have said repeatedly is a terrible actor.  In fact, he may be the worst actor ever to win an Academy Award…seriously.  And it seems in White House Down, he sets out to prove this sentiment true.  If ever there was a less believable performance in cinematic history than this one, I challenge one and all to find it.  Yes, he fumbles lines.  Yes, he fails at maintaining any kind of consistency in his character.  Yes, he has zero chemistry with his muscle-bound co-start.  And yes, he is actually a worse dramatic actor than Channing Tatum.

So with the two names sitting atop the marquee performing so poorly, it’s no wonder the movie wreaks so badly.  Even with fair performances from acting veterans Richard Jenkins (Speaker of the House), James Woods (head of the president’s Secret Service detail), and Jason Clarke (rogue Delta soldier), and a better-than-usual turn for Maggie Gyllenhaal, whom I will forever refer to as the weak link in the Dark Knight, nothing makes this viewing experience any better.  Not even a slightly better than average child performance from Joey King (Cale’s daughter) and good comedic relief from Nicolas Wright (as a White House tour guide)

There’s no nice way to put this.  White House Down stinks.  At best it’s a Sunday night FX movie at the end of a long weekend when you can’t really concentrate and you need something to put you down for the night.  Under any other circumstance, you will without a doubt find yourself struggling with the same regret I am plagued with as I type this review.  If it is action you seek, go with Independence Day as it will let you experience some of Emmerich’s better work from days long since passed, and it will also give you that White House demolition visual.  A refresh of that movie could be useful as Independence Day parts 2 and 3 are rumored to be in the works; also to be directed by Emmerich.  On second, you may want to take a pass on those movies as well. 

Standout Performance:  Richard Jenkins.  He’s solid in this movie and that’s saying a lot.

Read More

Review: Django Unchained

Most people would agree that Quentin Tarantino is a creative individual.  Whether he is a good writer is a topic more up for debate.  To me, Django Unchained illustrates the dichotomy between that creativity and literary arts as the film is loaded with dynamic visuals and cinematic flair, but is often anchored by rudimentary logic and clunky dialogue.  The result is an entertaining movie that lacks the foundation upon which to build a truly strong cinematic narrative.

The film details the plight of a slave who joins up with bounty hunter Dr. Schultz to track down and kill criminals on behalf of the U.S. District Courts.  After a very successful winter, he earns his freedom and with the help of Schultz seeks to buy back his wife, who is owned by nefarious plantation owner, Calvin Candie.  Needless to say, things go awry and conflict ensues.  After watching that conflict arise and conclude, I walked out of the cinema thinking that I liked the movie but probably would not watch it again.  In the spirit of delivering the veggies before the dessert I will start with why I wouldn’t watch it again.  To me the reasons are three fold:

1. The writing. Tarantino’s creativity really pops in those climactic moments when the pieces on the proverbial board come to a head.  There’s always a hip fan boy flair to these climactic scenes and an eye-popping attention to detail.  The problem though is with the rest of the film.  Dialogue, exposition, and the other nuts and bolts of story telling are the connective tissue that tie a film together and unfortunately at times Tarantino skimps out in those areas.  That quality is precisely what keeps this film from being something more than just an entertaining jaunt. 

2. The second reason I would not see this movie again is Jamie Foxx.  With all due respect to his apologists, the man is not much of an actor.  He is a great impersonator – as many comedians are, but when asked to give an original performance, he tends to underwhelm.  Without a doubt, he is the weak link in the cast, and that’s incredibly problematic since he is the protagonist. 

3. The third reason is the length of the movie.  There is this trend amongst “cinematic auteurs” to put as much as possible into a film with little or no regard to flow and pacing.  This almost always detracts from the film experience – particularly when it comes to the action genre, and detracts from the final climactic scene.  Less can be more, especially when it comes to editing matters.

As for reasons to watch this movie, by my count there are three:

1. Christoph Waltz as Dr. King Schultz.  The key to films like Django Unchained is that there has to be heart at the center of the plot driving all the action.  Otherwise, it’s just purposeless violence and that can only hold an audience captive for so long.  Jamie Foxx’s Django is meant to serve in this capacity, but fortunately Waltz is able to deliver where Foxx falters.  His masterful performance becomes that emotional center – the heart, the sympathy, the love, and the loyalty, that engages the viewer and keeps them invested in the outcome.

2.  Leonardo DiCaprio as Calvin Candie.  This role would have been a challenge for even the most accomplished character actor to portray.  Candie is vile, flamboyant, and nuanced.  With the dialogue that Tarantino saddles upon this character, I could envision dozens of scenarios where this performance could have gone horribly awry, but to his credit, DiCaprio is able to not only prevent Candie from morphing into a caricature of epic of proportions but also to deliver a complex performance loaded with conviction. 

3. Samuel L. Jackson as Stephen.  There was point somewhere in Jackson’s career where he decided to do the Nic Cage money grab and accept every role thrown at him.  So much so that he could easily have usurped Kevin Bacon in the 6 Degrees of Bacon game.  Worse still is that he resigned himself to simply rehashing slightly altered versions of himself as Shaft in each of these movies.  In the same way that it finally felt like Bruce Willis was really trying again in Looper, that’s how I felt about Jackson in this film.  His performance was pointed, funny, duplicitous, and a bunch of other adjectives that people stopped using in regards to Jackson’s acting.

So when you consider the good and the bad, it becomes apparent that Django Unchained is an entertaining but flawed film.  It’s a fine line between quirky brilliance and utter camp and Tarantino typically hops over the line numerous times in his film.  Django Unchained is no exception to this rule.  But then you don’t go to see a Tarantino movie and expect high art, sweeping story arcs, and deep character development.  Those films come from the Steven Spielbergs of the world.  Django Unchained is for those on the other end of the spectrum who watch for the spectacle and are captivated by the visual.  If you find that you fall into the latter, then you will definitely want to see his movie on the big screen.  It will not disappoint.  If it is the journey more so than the destination that makes a movie for you, then I would see it as a rental.  You may not love this movie, but you will be entertained.

Standout Performance: Christoph Waltz.  A very strong character performance in movie otherwise driven by action.

Read More