deranian-1

I am giving this film a negative review although I did enjoy the two main characters. The film had no arc and little to interest the viewer. The director attempted to tell too many stories and used trite tie-ins that failed to captivate. After a while the only question was "When is this going to end?" If this is her first film then she needs to learn how to edit and to avoid cute but dull characters. She provides no background story that might have helped the audience to care. Her approach is to tell as many stories as possible in as democratic a way as possible with the result that everything is static. Its not all bad but would have been a better film if she had concentrated more on the story of the two main characters and less on others such as the two teenage girls and the horny shoe salesman friend of the main male actor.

Altman, among others, can tell a lot of stories well. She is no Altman.

Billed as a romantic comedy set against the early years of WWII it fails to deliver. The problem is that while beautifully photographed it has no consistent story line or narrative. Starting as a murder mystery it offers no hope to its actors as it meanders through recent history. Depardieu is wasted in a trivial role he obviously is not comfortable with playing. Adjani cannot carry the picture. The hero is not; obviously an imitation of a Hitchcock "wrongly accused" role it lacks balance. Neither heroic, comic nor suspenseful.

This could have been a good film. I am reminded of "The Lady Vanishes" which did combine suspense, romance and comedy in a serious film dealing with fascism.

I saw the film this morning with an audience of 500. While I enjoyed the photography and found the acting honest I failed to see a great film. This was a self indulgent effort. If the director had a point to make it was not evident. It was a film of many mysteries without solution. The tower seems to symbolize the passages one goes through to become an adult. The father returns to teach his children to become aware, tough and to survive -- or -- what? What is in the box? Where has the father been for the past 12 years? After a while one does not care. What is the purpose of a film like this. To provide one the opportunity to make sense of the clues provided but to what end when no point is made. That the father loved his sons appears to be established. Who is the father calling? Who cares?

Everything is on the screen. Beautifully photographed with three actors who perform without sentimentality. As close to what it must have meant to be in the South in the waning days of the War. Brutally honest in its depictions of the best and worse of human behavior. One critic here in Chicago panned the film because Kidman was not disheveled or dirty; what picture was he watching. Only confirms that most critics are one remove from parasites.

A film to avoid. Even with the talented Billy Bob Thornton the film is flat, meandering and pointless. Not a comedy, black or otherwise, the film lacks a moral center which is essential to comedies that attempt to parody social behavior. The film lacks heroes and makes up for that loss by crudity. It didn't work for Eddie Murphy and it does not work for Billy Bob (who ought to fire his agent). It is a cheap piece of exploitation of the holiday.

After reading some of the reviews I looked forward to seeing this film described as "a screwball comedy" in the tradition of Gable, Cary Grant, Carole Lombard and others. After seeing the film the new definition of screwball comedy means a film lacking in laughs. What fails here is the script; no wit, no verbal forays. What I do not understand is what happened. The basic idea is great and must have wowed in the story conference. The talent is there: Clooney, Zeta-Jones, Rush and directed by Joel Coen. But whoever did the script and whoever approved the script let the side down. Clooney was cast for this role but his talent cannot save it. No edge to the character of Miles Massey (great name)in the style of "Out of Sight". Too bad.

I say the film yesterday via Talk Cinema. Technically superb mixing real persons with actors portraying them. Both leads are excellent and their characterizations realistic. In the film, Giamatti portrays Pekar as a curmudgeon who becomes lovable and reflective. But we never get to see what makes Pekar interesting to his readers. We see the adoration some show to him but the Pekar depicted early on is someone most of us would not want to continue speaking to or about. He is a shlub without redeeming qualities. The Pekar we see is a hero to the self absorbed generations born after 1943.