Change Your Image
rurquhart-2
Reviews
Mascots (2016)
Disappointingly by-the-numbers...
Like many, I'm sure, I was excitedly awaiting the next Christopher Guest movie - and coming in to this one, all indications (cast, premise, trailer, Netflix involvement) were encouraging. I was genuinely excited to sit down and watch it.
Sadly, Mascots does not deliver against the high standard Guest fans have come to expect. It's essentially Best In Show without the charm, spontaneity or laughs.
Although you have to believe all involved wanted to make something special, the inescapable lingering impression is of a very distinct 'Guest' formula (specifically, the variation of it applied in Best In Show) being reapplied with a (slightly) different cast and setting, but *without* inspiration or enthusiasm. The character introductions, the first-night cocktail party, the build-up to the event, the event itself, and the where-are-they now recap: *all* these elements were there, which is not necessarily a problem, but without some added magic (e.g., some innovative spark, something that creatively/emotionally unites the various story threads, or even just some consistent unexpected laughs) you're left with a pretty joyless, formulaic exercise in painting by numbers.
I kept waiting and wanting to be emotionally invested in the movie, but never was. Someone won the gold Fluffy - but so what - someone had to. The 'network people' thread, set up as something that would have a huge bearing on the Fluffies' future, went nowhere. NOWHERE! They turned out to be from Burbank, not NYC (this demonstrates the standard of the jokes), and were then shunted aside to deal with the degenerate in the rabbit suit. We never saw them again. Oh well.
It's as though, in the absence of any really interesting new ideas, Guest has just returned to an old well and repeated himself, and expected a paying audience to accept it. It felt like a contractual obligation. It's an unfortunate thing.
I love so many of his earlier movies so much that I can't/won't give up hope. I just hope his next one delivers a bit more, well, entertainment.
Hot Sugar's Cold World (2015)
Didn't love it...
Just finished viewing. Im left feeling nothing more or less than mid-level annoyance.
This is presented as a documentary - but parts were clearly staged. For example:
1) The 'spontaneous' banter with the party clown who was supposedly found through the internet, but was played by (pretty great) actor Pat Healy.
2) The tattooed nazi-fighting upstairs neighbor who HS supposedly thought had died a year earlier, but whom the 'documenatry' crew had somehow managed to shoot comprehensively (i.e., during the course of production, but prior to his death).
OK, so if it's one of them mockumentaries, what's the point? No one could possibly claim it to be funny. There are a few vaguely interesting thoughts scattered throughout, but nowhere near enough to justify the 90 minute running time (bringing N dG T into the fray was cringeful). Was the 'Mozart' BS, the blasé BS about his relatives' holocaust experience, and the blasé BS with the skulls in the catacombs meant to satirise pretentious monied millennial hipsters? If so, why would you bother? To present this type of dude as a self-involved tool would be like saying the sky is blue.
I can't think of too many reasons to recommend this. I liked the music OK, but I could have just listened to that on my phone while doing something more useful/satisfying with my time.
To summarise: This was every bit as annoying as 'I'm Still Here,' but at least that 'documentary' had a charismatic lead with something at stake - this one did not. If you know the guy's music, maybe you'll get something out of it - otherwise, I'd say you could easily skip it and not feel as though you'd missed out on much.
BTW: Jim Jarmusch is listed in the cast, but he appears for less than 10 seconds and doesn't say anything.
Drive Hard (2014)
I hope Mr Cusack received a large cheque...
..I really do.
This is nothing more than a poorly conceived and executed advertisement for the Queensland Gold Coast hinterland. The kind of movie where the action (such as it is) limps from one rube-magnet tourist trap to the next, with the camera dwelling jarringly on the signage at each new location along the way.
I can't think of a single reason to recommend this film - but plenty to recommend against it. Fans of Mr Cusack or Mr Jane will descend quickly from confusion, to dismay, to disgust as they realise the dross the two have allowed themselves to be party to. The endless succession of car chases is unimaginative and unmoving. The performances so lifeless the cast may as well have been reciting directly from the page.
The most interesting thing about this movie is its utter, utter, utter absence of wit, style or inspiration. It will leave you genuinely searching, grasping, for reasons why a group of adults with money would possibly choose to produce something like this - something so inanely artless. My god, if you're going to take the effort to get out of bed and point a camera at something, why (how!) would you not come up with something more satisfying - something more worthy of being put before a paying audience?
I really need to take a shower. This was not just forgettable - it was depressing. Beyond pointless.
Blood (2012)
Disappointing
Great cast, promising story - but ultimately disappointing.
It did not surprise me to learn that this film was based on a TV series. Over much of the running time I found myself distracted by just how busy the story was. It was one plot point after another, after another, with no space in-between to let the characters (or audience) absorb each of the many developments before proceeding - or to establish a strong sense of mood or location. It seemed as though the makers had condensed into a feature film length a story that was intended to be told over a much longer duration - as though an emotionally balanced story had been harshly edited, leaving just a collection of 'flashpoints.'
With a cast and story this good, Blood could have achieved something as atmospheric and dramatic as Mystic River. Unfortunately though, it felt like one of those British TV crime dramas in which they have to introduce characters, portray a crime, investigate the crime (uncovering a series of disturbing family secrets and dispensing with a couple of red herrings in the process) and arrive at a harrowing (but ultimately just) conclusion, all within the span of a single episode.
An enjoyable, but not especially memorable, film.
Generation Um... (2012)
Good movie. Not one of Keanu's cineplex-type efforts.
I had mixed expectations going in to this film. On the one hand, there was the generally poor showing on IMDb (low rating, several dismissals as boring/uneventful), the relatively bland poster (which conveys little except that the film features three beautiful people) and a pretty uninspired title. But on the other hand, I enjoyed 'Henry's Crime' and '...Pippa Lee' a lot, and so the idea of another non-action-based Keanu film seemed like a reasonable prospect. In the end, I was very glad a took a punt. I liked this film a lot.
'Generation Um...' relies very much on character, dialogue and story, rather than action or suspense. Anyone going in looking for a Keanu cineplex-type effort will certainly be surprised - and probably disappointed. The pace is very deliberate - but it's all relevant, and it all contributes to the film's effectiveness. If a film is to convey the sense of a lifestyle convincingly, it has to follow its subjects through the dull, solitary periods as well as the lively ones. This film does just that and as a result provided a comprehensive picture of the three main characters. You are left with a strong sense of how each of the three got to where they are, how they feel about where they are and how their lives might play out from this point.
The relatively simple story unfolds in just the right way. The significance of the opening scene, and the way each of the three characters spends the following day is only revealed toward the end. The way these things were revealed was great - suddenly, each character's behaviour throughout the rest of the film (even the vacuousness of the first few scenes, which was pretty hard to take the first time through) made good sense. Then the film ends more or less where it started - and you're left with the feeling that these people are doomed to carry on behaving the same way day after day until age, physical decay or poverty pushes them in an even less appealing direction.
All in all, a very satisfying film. I recommend it highly.
Powder Blue (2009)
Oh my...
This film aims high. It seems determined to extract heart-wrenching, raw, profound human truth from each and every scene. Unfortunately, because so little of the characters' behaviour makes sense, and so much of the dialogue is so unbelievable, the result is an overbearing mess - and very difficult to sit through.
Are we expected to believe that a person who wishes to die, but does not wish to commit suicide, would go about it as Mr Whitaker does? If we don't believe this (and how could we - I mean, thrusting a revolver into the hands of complete strangers - and not even murderous-looking ones at that - and begging to be shot dead) then how could we be expected to make any sort of emotional investment in his character's plight from that point on? (In any event, wouldn't prompting someone to shoot you amount to suicide anyway?)
For me, expecting an audience to believe a premise of this sort is pretty insulting. If a filmmaker can't put a little more thought into their characters' behaviour, they don't deserve an audience's attention.
Similarly, how are we expected to believe Ms Biel's interactions with Mr Liotta, given the circumstances of their meeting? The rapidfire progression from stalking, to friendliness, to 'don't look at me!' was just baffling. Even by the loosest standard of believability, her character just seemed unhinged (her flicking between extremes in her scene with the doctor, and the speed with which she absorbed her son's eventual fate, did not help in this regard either). If her behaviour was not intended to be realistic (e.g., if there was some exaggerated theatrical style in mind) then surely that style would need to be maintained throughout the movie in order for the whole to remain coherent. It wasn't, and it didn't.
Further audience insults include: lazy hints at complex or meaningful back stories (e.g., Mr Kristopherson's character, Mr Whitaker's wifely and priestly flashbacks, Ms Kudrow's scoundrel ex-husband and Qwerty's puppets); a jarringly unrealistic injured dog (which, after being hit by a car at speed, lies there placidly and allows itself to be carried away by a stranger without so much as a whimper or snarl, despite remaining conscious throughout); and a guy's absurd attempt to slip past two huge doormen and make a slick getaway... in a clunky old freight elevator! - as though the doormen might not catch him!
Stilted dialogue? You bet! Just wait for the 'easy banter' between the two nurses on the way to the room where Ms Biel's tyke enters cardiac arrest. Then check out the same nurse when she later informs Ms Biel that the hospital bills have been paid. Yeeeesh.
This film seems to strain for the type of tone and affect achieved by Magnolia. But to make a film like that, you need to be Paul Thomas Anderson. This guy is not he. This guy is not even Paul W S Anderson. This guy is a bad-vibe merchant at best. A floater.