ROMANTIC COMEDIES THAT WERE NEITHER ROMANTIC NOR COMEDIC
From time to time during my reviews, I have often decried the current state of the romantic comedy genre for a variety of reasons. 2009's "The Proposal" (Directed by Anne Fletcher) starring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, was, for me, the latest casualty of a genre that has increasingly dumbed itself down due to lazy writing, weak characters, maddeningly contrived situations, shoddy and artless direction and as the title of this section states, no real sense of romance or comedy whatsoever. On-screen couples arrive in the world of love and happiness solely because the script instructed them to do so, not for any real storytelling or palpable emotion. As I have also stated many times, I know it is cotton candy. I know that by the very nature of being a movie, it is a fantasy. But, why do these fantasies have to be so stupid and depict a world where no sane human being would ever behave in such ways? Furthermore, when did the characters become so loathsome, where we really don't want them to end up with anybody, let alone the person they are attached to on the film's one sheet poster?
I turn to 2002's "Sweet Home Alabama" (Directed by Andy Tennant) as one of the early romantic comedy entries of the decade that made me want to scream. My feelings stemmed from the fact that Reese Witherspoon's character was so despicable, so horribly shallow, elitist, cruel and whiny that she did not deserve either Josh Lucas or Patrick Dempsey. How could this film ever think that she was someone to root for? Well, it made money by coasting off of Witherspoon's charm, I suppose. But, I'm sorry--for me, charm is not enough.
This proves to be especially prevalent for one of my favorite actors, who exudes enormous charm to go along with his immense and at times, subversive talent: Mr. John Cusack. Yet, he was the star in two awful romantic comedy films during the last decade and considering his landmark leading young man performances in Director Rob Reiner's "The Sure Thing" (1985) and Cameron Crowe's seminal "Say Anything..." (1989), Cusack definitely should have known better.
2001's "Serendipity" (Directed by Peter Chelsom) was a truly frustrating experience. The convoluted plot about a man currently engaged to another woman, pursuing a possible destiny with the strange young woman (Kate Beckinsdale) he'd met, shared ice cream and skates with and somehow fell in love with years earlier. "Serendipity" featured maddening scenarios designed to keep the two apart until the film's final reel. Yes, that trait is a conceit of the romantic comedy genre, but too much of Cusack flying on one plane to a destination Beckinsdale coincidentally just departed from grew so tiresome and agonizing. Even basic plausibility was thrown out of the window in the opening sequences with Cusack and Beckinsdale's day long courtship. It was just profoundly unrealistic to me to think that Cusack would not have even once asked this woman what her name was before the plot contrivances were set in motion--because if he did, the movie would've been over immediately! Beyond that, wasn't it clear that Beckinsdale was...insane?!
2005's "Must Love Dogs" (Directed by Gary David Goldberg) was even more unforgivable as it had no concept of how real people in real situations behave and respond emotionally. The story of two divorced people, nearing 40 and finding love again is a subject ripe for romantic comedy and it featured not only Cusack but the wonderful Diane Lane. You could not ask for two more charismatic, empathetic, attractive, intelligent leads, yet this film gave them absolutely nothing to do and no characters to play. In addition, this film's cast boasts no less than Elizabeth Perkins, Stockard Channing and Christopher Plummer and wastes all of their talents entirely in this tepid time-waster.
As for 2005's completely negligible "The Wedding Date" (Directed by Clare Kilner) starring Debra Messing, in a performance that suggested a state of unhinged mania and Dermot Mulroney, an actor who has always struck me as being horribly wooden, is just not worth going into more than this.
UNFUNNY COMEDIES THAT MADE A FORTUNE
There must have been times for all of you reading this post where you have painfully sat through a terrible movie and wondered to yourself if the people involved knew while they were filming that the material was beneath them and just not working at all. Continuing with the theme of films that tried to be comedic but failed miserably, I have to toss in two films I could not believe that any of the participants thought was comedic gold.
The 2003 Adam Sandler/Jack Nicholson feature, "Anger Management" (Directed by Peter Segal) never delved any deeper than its one-sheet poster and made for torpid viewing. It was as if the inspired casting and that aforementioned poster would be good enough...trust me, it really wasn't.
Those feelings were tame compared to what I felt when I watched 2003's disastrous mega-hit "Bringing Down The House" (Directed by Adam Shankman) starring Steve Martin and Queen Latifah. The film's tone was pitched with the delicate subtlety of a sledgehammer while the comedy itself lacked style, finesse and a little something called humor. As I watched that film, I regarded the presence of Steve Martin and wondered constantly if he thought that even one moment was funny. I mean--it's Steve Martin, comedy legend, brilliant writer, novelist, screenwriter, playwright, musician, and known art collector. He must have known, right? He's not hurting for money, as far as I know, so this just could not have been solely a financial choice, right? No one will ever know for certain but this was a case when stars and director should have shut down production entirely and said to themselves, "This isn't working at all." Yet, he and the casts of both films, laughed their way to the bank...all at our expense.
SOMETIMES THE CAKE DOESN'T RISE...NO MATTER THE INGREDIENTS
In the case of Director Frank Oz's 2004 remake of "The Stepford Wives," you may have all of the ingredients but the film, for whatever reason, just doesn't work at all for any moment. In addition to Oz, the cast featured Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Jon Lovitz, Christopher Walken and Glenn Close contributing their collective talents to a screenplay written by then-hot Paul Rudnick ("Adams Family Values," and the Kevin Kline starring "In And Out") and the resulting film was dreadful from start to finish. It was nothing I felt angry with as it seemed that everyone involved clearly wanted to make a good film, but sometimes, the stars just are not in alignment.
POOR LITTLE RICH PEOPLE
Movies, at their very best, can be transformative and transportive experiences. Sometimes, the power of cinema can give viewers an opportunity to empathize with someone in a different walk of life than themselves. As I write, I am thinking most recently of Lee Daniels' extraordinary film "Precious," which featured a volcanic performance by Mo'Nique as the horrible Mother of the title character. What Mo'Nique accomplished in this role was to transcend the behavior and make us see a life lived and the circumstances in which it became broken and delusional. She discovered the humanity inside the monstrous behavior...and through the alchemy of direction, writing and performance, this was a character that deserved to be understood, even though her behavior was repellent.
I am beginning this section with that anecdote because there were two films during the last decade, where I cared not a whit about the leading characters and as they each continued upon their paths, I hated them more and more. And they certainly did the overly privileged and liberals no favors at all. 2002's "Igby Goes Down" (Written and Directed by Burr Steers), was a Salingeresque comedy-drama about Igby (Kieran Culkin), a 17-year-old prep-school dropout who wages rebellion against his "old-money" family as he also struggles with his cancer stricken Mother (Susan Sarandon), schizophrenic father (Bill Pullman)and philandering Godfather (Jeff Goldblum). This was a smug, insincere work where Igby was not one to sympathize with. He came across as an immature, whiny misanthropic loser who just could not understand that the world doesn't revolve around him. The film unfortunately was not a critique of this character but the one you were meant to sympathize with. I have to say that in a scene late in the film where Goldblum slaps Igby silly, I wanted to join him.
Director Terry Zwigoff's "Ghost World" (2001) fell down a similar chasm as that film's leading character, Enid (Thora Birch) faced a crippling post-high school terror of the future by also whining and playing increasingly mean-spirited pranks throughout her small town and on middle-aged record collector Steve Buscemi, in particular. Her cruelty set off by her ennui seemed to only exist solely because of her privileged and pure laziness, like Igby, expecting the world to stop and bow to her just because she had no goals, no plans or coping skills.
The absolute worst was 2005's "The Family Stone" (Written and Directed by Thomas Bezucha), a holiday themed comedy-drama about a liberal family's malcontent meeting with their son's (again played by the wooden Dermot Mulroney) conservative fiancee (Sarah Jessica Parker). The family's liberalism was laid out tremendously thick as one of the members is a deaf and gay son with an African-American lover. What hurt the film was the fact that this was a family of ugly narcissists engaging in class and social warfare with the unsuspecting Parker. It was a film in love with its own politics at the expense of good, honest storytelling and when all else fails, just fall down in a pile of food in the kitchen. Ugh!
And before I shove onwards, I cannot forget 2004's "Spanglish," written and directed by the otherwise great James L. Brooks and also starring Adam Sandler. It was a mess of epic proportions and what irked me most was that it danced completely around a MAJOR subject: Tea Leoni's character's blatant bi-polar state of mind. If it is obvious to the audience, why wouldn't it be to the characters?
FALLING STARS
Even the biggest cinematic stars are capable of creating cinematic bombs and we just don't have to look much further than 2001's syrupy and god-awful, "I Am Sam," (Co-Written and Directed by Jessie Nelson) starring Sean Penn as a mentally challenged man fighting to keep custody of his 7-year-old daughter (Dakota Fanning) and aided by attorney Michelle Pfeiffer. It was trealcy, shamelessly sentimental and featured one of Sean Penn's flat-out worst performances, as it was less "Rainman" and more of a big plate of ham. What was most striking about that film was its horrible and sexist depiction of a 21st century career woman as a screaming, bitchy, hysterical nervous wreck with no family or friends of her own. Terrible.
Just nothing could save 2007's "Georgia Rule" (Directed by Garry Marshall), not even the presence of screen legend Jane Fonda. This was the film that marked the beginning of the end of Lindsey Lohan's rising film career, mostly due to her personal troubles and well-reported on-set antics. It was a sad sight to watch Lohan, who had been so sweet and charming with her dual performance in the 1998 remake of "The Parent Trap" as well as the terrific "Mean Girls" from 2004. But, this film was really like watching a falling star as whatever talent she possessed was being squandered and we could witness the pitiful descent within this dreadful movie.
BIG BUDGETS, BIG WASTE
Massive budgets do not inherently produce good movies and for as many terrible blockbusters there were during the last decade, here were some that I really regretted sitting through.
In the case of Director Bryan Singer, I will have to possibly conceed that I just may not respond well to his style, as I have not appreciated any film he has made. I know that most people really love the two "X-Men" films he directed, but I just didn't care for them at all and the most celebrated installment, 2003's "X2: X-Men United" I really hated. The film was a boring mess as it just did not understand the motives and natures of the characters from the source material. Also, he simply had no skill when handling a large cast of heroes and villains with super powers. Characters were just shuffled aimlessly from scene to scene and when in doubt, just knock one of them unconscious for half of the film's running time. It was obvious that the only character Singer really cared about was Wolverine, yet why was his story such a snooze? Singer returned to the comic book genre with 2006's deeply disappointing and interminable "Superman Returns." That film was miscast from top to bottom and with a 2 hour and 43 minute running time, I felt evey single minute of it passing by.
Director Tony Scott's "Domino" (2005) was a torturous, bloated, hyperactively over-directed, ugly, gratuitously violent disaster that should force Keira Knightly to star solely in period films where she wears corsets. And I have to give another sock to the chops of 2008's odious "Wanted" (Directed by Timur Bekmambetov). While it was aother massive hit and is about to spawn a sequel, for me, this film was completely crass, crushingly over-directed and artless in every possible wayas it stole all of its ideas from "Fight Club," "The Matrix" and every Daddy issue since Oedipus while not offering even one original idea of its own. Also gratuitously violent and special-effects filled to an almost depressing degree, this movie was just so difficult and agonizing to sit through.
But, the biggest target in my cross-hairs is Director Michael Bay, who is the death of cinema to me. He paints in the broadest of dumbed down, mass produced, lowest common denominator strokes with his ADD styled films that offer not one shread of creativity and humanity, let alone a joy of filmmaking. These are not films to watch, enjoy or be entertained by. They are films to be bludgeoned by. Worst of all is 2001's "Pearl Harbor," which exploited a national tragedy in a cynical search for "Titanic" box-office recepits by placing fictional characters within a historical setting and tacking a blockheaded, tone-deaf, brainless and hopeless love story into a ridiculously painful three hour running time. Unlike James Cameron, whom I believe was emotionally connected to his material and the tragedy of the Titanic, I do not believe for one single second that Michael Bay cared even a little bit about the history, the people, the devastation and destruction. Well, let me correct that last statement, Bay does care about the destruction..its the only thing he cared about in that damn foolish movie: explosions and carnage.
MOVIE STAR EGOS OUT OF CONTROL
I remember exiting two major releases from huge, huge stars that angered me. What brought forth my rage aganst the screen was the unadulterated arrogance on display and contempt for the audience.
Drew Barrymoore's production of 2000's "Charlie's Angels" (Directed by McG) was nothing...and I mean, nothing more than an expensive slumber party that she happened to film. Additionally, 2004's "Oceans 12" (Directed by Steven Soderburgh) and 2005's "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" (Directed by Doug Liman) both featured big budgets and A-List actors, obviously enjoying the time they shared with each other, as they were paid enormous salaries in grand locales, to not act or even care about the movies they were starring in. It was the worst display of the movie star arrogance. It was as if they were all saying to us through those films, "You love us!! You love us so much that you'll pay your hard-earned money to watch us do anything or even nothing...all because you love us so, so much." Yuch!
THE WORST FILM OF THE DECADE
The absolute worst film I saw this past decade came from one of my favorite Directors, Terry Gilliam. was 2005's "Tideland." It was a disturbingly repugnant, ugly, and interminable film I felt was an irresponsible act of cruelty to the audience as well as the young actress in the leading role. This child has to endure all manner of horrific situations including the junkie related deaths of both parents; the rotting, flatulent and later, embalmed corpse of her father (Jeff Bridges); a just creepy exploration of a child's emerging sexuality, and an even creepier relationship between herself and a developmentally disabled adult that flirts with the tone of pedophelia.
The theme of a child using the tools of fantasy and imagination to survive horrific realities is a theme that is suited perfectly to Gilliam's strengths but completely unlike "Pan's Labyrinth," which was a beautiful nightmare, "Tideland" is a grotesque nightmare, an endless goon show with nothing to balance the proceedings.
What REALLY pissed me off were Gilliam's naive introductory statements on the DVD about the resiliancy of children, but in his case, those statements are all in reference to a STORY, i.e. a completely controlled environment where the heroine will be OK just because Gilliam says so. The young actress has to go through so much in the story and I can only imagine what the 10-year-old may have been thinking or wondering about as she sat in the lap of her rotting father being consoled by a collective of disembodied doll heads. It all felt very wrong and uncomfortable--you all know that feeling and it was one that I couldn't escape.
Was there no one there to reign Gilliam in, to make his ideas clearer, to help him acknowledge the fact that an audience was intended to see this thing? You can't just throw a vat of feces on a wall and call it "Art" but that's exactly what Gilliam did with gleeful unrepentance (a quality to admire in some respects) but he obviously fell in love and embraced his legendary "madman genius" reputation. I will admit that there are a few brief images in "Tideland" that stand up to the best of his work, but whatever nastiness he needed to get out of his system at the time of filming his art and audience brutally suffered for it this time around.
At last!! My cnematic travelogue through the last decade is complete. But, before next week's Oscar telecast, I do have one more list to get myself through...
MY FAVORITE FILMS OF 2009!
Stay tuned and as always, thank you so much for reading!
Kieran. KIERAN Culkin.
ReplyDeleteThanks. Slip of the finger while typing...
ReplyDelete