I just had to write a comment. I can't believe how many people found this movie poignant and charming and touching. I hoped I would. I did not.
I was surprised to find this movie at my local cineplex. The reviews in the paper weren't very good, but the ad was intriguing. The title is awkwardly long, I hoped the movie was not. There was only room enough on the box office sign to put the words "Marilyn Hotchkiss", and there were at least 2 couples in line were confused about what "ballroom" movie it was they were there to see. I suspect there will be some audiences who really wanted to see the Antonio Banderas movie (Take The Lead) instead. I haven't seen that one yet, but it looks like a better bet.
The movie is obviously low budget, and the fact that they nabbed so many name actors to appear in it is both appealing and distracting. It's almost like the result of some contest for "who can get the most name actors in their low-budget movie?". Perhaps they were following the trend set by last year's winner of that contest, "Crash". Most of these name actors in "Marilyn Hotchkiss..." have very little to do, and some of them are surprisingly awful. There are exceptions. Robert Carlyle, in the lead, is quite good, though at times it seems he can't quite decide whether or not to use his native Scottish accent. His character is a baker whose family has owned a bakery in Pasadena, California "since 1903", so it would be logical that at least he and his father before him were born and grew up in the United States. Still, Carlyle is otherwise very genuine and is the backbone of this movie. Donnie Wahlberg is also a welcome stand-out in his role as one of the patrons of the Ballroom Dancing and Charm School. Marisa Tomei gives a nice performance, as do several of the other "name actors" who have minor roles, including David Paymer, Adam Arkin, and Ernie Hudson (as members of Carlyle's widower's support group) and Sonia Braga (who is one of the ladies at the dance class). Mary Steenburgen, as the leader of the dance class, gives an interesting performance. I'm not usually a fan of her work. I don't always believe what she says -- she always seems to be "acting". But in this case her theatrical style is very appropriate and suits her and the role. Sean Astin, of whom I am a fan, doesn't fare as well. Had this been the first film I'd ever seen him in, I'd have thought, "That is just not a very good actor".
Others on the minus side are Camryn Manheim, who stops in to give a one-scene one-note performance -- and it's not a note you'd want to hear over and over again. At least her scene is short. Which leads me to another one-note performance that seems endless -- The winner of the Lousiest Acting in an Independent Feature Award goes to John Goodman. I have even greater respect for Robert Carlyle's talent in coming up with such an honest performance while having to act with Goodman, who is so unbelievable and phony. Danny DeVito appears briefly in one scene, as if to fulfill the star quota. Among the several non-name actors that are spattered throughout the film, there is one that was conspicuous, the only actor I didn't recognize in Carlyle's widower's support group, a sad-sack faced actor named David St. James, whose every appearance involves him crying. Though I imagine it's intended to be comedic, it is so over-the-top, reminiscent of Stan Laurel or the Cowardly Lion, he seems to have been stuck in the wrong movie.
The writing is all over the place, some good, some bad, some preposterous. I won't include a spoiler, but there's a scene in the bakery that would not only violate health code standards, but have you seriously consider that low-carb diet.
I can't say the directing is all bad. Though he wasn't able to get good performances out of all of the actors, director Randall Miller has managed to come up with some nice imagery. His skill at photographing dance isn't always great, but I did like one particularly memorable shot panning across the feet of the ladies waiting in line to dance. He's chosen two different cinematography styles to denote flashback. The scenes from the original short (made 15 years ago), of the young kids in dancing class, are given an overly grainy look. (Or maybe that was what the entire short originally looked like). The John Goodman scenes, flashing back to the car accident, are all in that over-exposed, washed-out look that has become popular in many films. The first time I saw that look in a movie, I thought it looked like bad photography, like the filmmakers didn't have the money to do it properly so the footage would look "good". I thought it looked cheap. But now that I've seen it in major studio films, like "Munich", I recognize that it isn't cheap, it's a choice. It's simply a choice that doesn't appeal to me. It makes those scenes look even more strident than John Goodman's acting. In "Marilyn Hotchkiss...", the many different styles make it look like an exercise in Photoshop Filters.
I really wanted to like this movie. Instead, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief through much of it.
I was surprised to find this movie at my local cineplex. The reviews in the paper weren't very good, but the ad was intriguing. The title is awkwardly long, I hoped the movie was not. There was only room enough on the box office sign to put the words "Marilyn Hotchkiss", and there were at least 2 couples in line were confused about what "ballroom" movie it was they were there to see. I suspect there will be some audiences who really wanted to see the Antonio Banderas movie (Take The Lead) instead. I haven't seen that one yet, but it looks like a better bet.
The movie is obviously low budget, and the fact that they nabbed so many name actors to appear in it is both appealing and distracting. It's almost like the result of some contest for "who can get the most name actors in their low-budget movie?". Perhaps they were following the trend set by last year's winner of that contest, "Crash". Most of these name actors in "Marilyn Hotchkiss..." have very little to do, and some of them are surprisingly awful. There are exceptions. Robert Carlyle, in the lead, is quite good, though at times it seems he can't quite decide whether or not to use his native Scottish accent. His character is a baker whose family has owned a bakery in Pasadena, California "since 1903", so it would be logical that at least he and his father before him were born and grew up in the United States. Still, Carlyle is otherwise very genuine and is the backbone of this movie. Donnie Wahlberg is also a welcome stand-out in his role as one of the patrons of the Ballroom Dancing and Charm School. Marisa Tomei gives a nice performance, as do several of the other "name actors" who have minor roles, including David Paymer, Adam Arkin, and Ernie Hudson (as members of Carlyle's widower's support group) and Sonia Braga (who is one of the ladies at the dance class). Mary Steenburgen, as the leader of the dance class, gives an interesting performance. I'm not usually a fan of her work. I don't always believe what she says -- she always seems to be "acting". But in this case her theatrical style is very appropriate and suits her and the role. Sean Astin, of whom I am a fan, doesn't fare as well. Had this been the first film I'd ever seen him in, I'd have thought, "That is just not a very good actor".
Others on the minus side are Camryn Manheim, who stops in to give a one-scene one-note performance -- and it's not a note you'd want to hear over and over again. At least her scene is short. Which leads me to another one-note performance that seems endless -- The winner of the Lousiest Acting in an Independent Feature Award goes to John Goodman. I have even greater respect for Robert Carlyle's talent in coming up with such an honest performance while having to act with Goodman, who is so unbelievable and phony. Danny DeVito appears briefly in one scene, as if to fulfill the star quota. Among the several non-name actors that are spattered throughout the film, there is one that was conspicuous, the only actor I didn't recognize in Carlyle's widower's support group, a sad-sack faced actor named David St. James, whose every appearance involves him crying. Though I imagine it's intended to be comedic, it is so over-the-top, reminiscent of Stan Laurel or the Cowardly Lion, he seems to have been stuck in the wrong movie.
The writing is all over the place, some good, some bad, some preposterous. I won't include a spoiler, but there's a scene in the bakery that would not only violate health code standards, but have you seriously consider that low-carb diet.
I can't say the directing is all bad. Though he wasn't able to get good performances out of all of the actors, director Randall Miller has managed to come up with some nice imagery. His skill at photographing dance isn't always great, but I did like one particularly memorable shot panning across the feet of the ladies waiting in line to dance. He's chosen two different cinematography styles to denote flashback. The scenes from the original short (made 15 years ago), of the young kids in dancing class, are given an overly grainy look. (Or maybe that was what the entire short originally looked like). The John Goodman scenes, flashing back to the car accident, are all in that over-exposed, washed-out look that has become popular in many films. The first time I saw that look in a movie, I thought it looked like bad photography, like the filmmakers didn't have the money to do it properly so the footage would look "good". I thought it looked cheap. But now that I've seen it in major studio films, like "Munich", I recognize that it isn't cheap, it's a choice. It's simply a choice that doesn't appeal to me. It makes those scenes look even more strident than John Goodman's acting. In "Marilyn Hotchkiss...", the many different styles make it look like an exercise in Photoshop Filters.
I really wanted to like this movie. Instead, I found myself shaking my head in disbelief through much of it.