Interesting concept for the plot, but mired in screenplay editing and, surprisingly, some weak acting.
Not sure if I'm spoiling anything, but:
The movie starts with the author at the reading of his book. The plot of his book is that another author steals the work of an unknown writer, becoming famous, and then meeting an older gentleman (the actual writer). Lots of rich soil to harvest many, many themes from, both moral and psychological.
Sounds great, but...I'm not quite sure if it's the writing, the directing, the screenplay editing, the movie editing, or a combination of all of these, but this is not the best opus from a group of seriously good, if not great, actors. It seemed that the first forty minutes was just a warm-up, because the acting was far superior in the second half of the movie.
Normally, Bradley Cooper is wonderful at playing the small stuff that makes a person humanly interesting. Not here. Dennis Quaid, at the reading of his own novel, is monotone; not very engaging when you're trying to sell a story (both his book & this movie). Even Jeremy Irons, an acting icon, doesn't deliver in the beginning. An example that may be a bit cliché, but it's about facial expression: you know when film characters reminisce, they look off into the distance as if they are peering deeply into the rich haze of their past? Here he seems like he's just looking at something across the way. But, like I said, much improved in the second half.
Zoe Saldana is charming; strong, yet vulnerable. But the real kudos go to Ben Barnes (Jeremy Irons's character as a young man) and Nora Arnezeder. During these segments the movie shines. Beautifully acted as well as filmed. A story you can sink your teeth into: meaty; one that moves you. This is the story stolen by Cooper's character. But then when the movie cuts back to Quaid and his audience, or to Irons and Cooper, the story doesn't seem to have registered with them at all; at least not until much later.
And the writing has something to do with it. When a movie plot hinges around characters that are writers, the screenplay better be damn good. This one hits with World War II-era Paris, but misses with modern New York. The lovely Olivia Wilde is an example. And her character is supposed to be lovely, and smart, and seductive. But here she comes off as a little creepy; a little stalker-ish.
There is another difference between the flashbacks and the present. The flashback characters have less proselytising. Back in the present, when every little thing that your character is feeling, thinking, or learning, is spoken out loud, it almost seems unnecessary to show emotion and thought through facial expressions, body language, gestures, or looks.
There are definitely exceptions, and this an excellent effort. But it takes a lot to balance the passion of directing your own writing with the distance needed to tell a story successfully. And it usually lies with the trimming of the fat. That's why authors need editors.
Again, a potentially great concept, but with okay delivery.
Not sure if I'm spoiling anything, but:
The movie starts with the author at the reading of his book. The plot of his book is that another author steals the work of an unknown writer, becoming famous, and then meeting an older gentleman (the actual writer). Lots of rich soil to harvest many, many themes from, both moral and psychological.
Sounds great, but...I'm not quite sure if it's the writing, the directing, the screenplay editing, the movie editing, or a combination of all of these, but this is not the best opus from a group of seriously good, if not great, actors. It seemed that the first forty minutes was just a warm-up, because the acting was far superior in the second half of the movie.
Normally, Bradley Cooper is wonderful at playing the small stuff that makes a person humanly interesting. Not here. Dennis Quaid, at the reading of his own novel, is monotone; not very engaging when you're trying to sell a story (both his book & this movie). Even Jeremy Irons, an acting icon, doesn't deliver in the beginning. An example that may be a bit cliché, but it's about facial expression: you know when film characters reminisce, they look off into the distance as if they are peering deeply into the rich haze of their past? Here he seems like he's just looking at something across the way. But, like I said, much improved in the second half.
Zoe Saldana is charming; strong, yet vulnerable. But the real kudos go to Ben Barnes (Jeremy Irons's character as a young man) and Nora Arnezeder. During these segments the movie shines. Beautifully acted as well as filmed. A story you can sink your teeth into: meaty; one that moves you. This is the story stolen by Cooper's character. But then when the movie cuts back to Quaid and his audience, or to Irons and Cooper, the story doesn't seem to have registered with them at all; at least not until much later.
And the writing has something to do with it. When a movie plot hinges around characters that are writers, the screenplay better be damn good. This one hits with World War II-era Paris, but misses with modern New York. The lovely Olivia Wilde is an example. And her character is supposed to be lovely, and smart, and seductive. But here she comes off as a little creepy; a little stalker-ish.
There is another difference between the flashbacks and the present. The flashback characters have less proselytising. Back in the present, when every little thing that your character is feeling, thinking, or learning, is spoken out loud, it almost seems unnecessary to show emotion and thought through facial expressions, body language, gestures, or looks.
There are definitely exceptions, and this an excellent effort. But it takes a lot to balance the passion of directing your own writing with the distance needed to tell a story successfully. And it usually lies with the trimming of the fat. That's why authors need editors.
Again, a potentially great concept, but with okay delivery.