I saw this screened at the Dallas AFI International Film Fest. It was one of the big buzz movies at the fest and it was disappointing -- despite Christopher Plummber's awesome performance
This film suffers from an inappropriate dichotomy: a good-natured family feel married to an F-bomb familiar script. This makes the film come across as indecisive and, as it will probably prove later, unmarketable. Michael Schroeder, who is not necessarily a bad director, crafts a tale of young Cameron Kincade's aspiration to win a student film competition. Also established from the beginning is this crusty old character Flash (played brilliantly by Christopher Plummber) moseying his way through life, taunting old-time actors during classic film screenings. We later find out that Flash is upset because he has been left behind twofold: by Hollywood (he was a former gaffer) and by his family. Kincaid works out an agreement that if Flash helps him win the competition, he will buy him booze and cigars (tough supplies for a 17 year old to buy -- but I won't nitpick).
The shots are beautiful and the performances are tender, but the problem lies within the film's "man in the chair". Michael Schroeder can't decide what he wants to do with this film. The film's indecisiveness comes across in an obvious way: is it a family film? It seems that way because the protagonist is "mischievious"/morally ambiguous (like a mild John Connor) but his crimes are not taken seriously. He is never punished nor has to appear in court (?!). Likewise, a very warm-hearted series of relationships bud between Kincaid and his elderly friends (showing that this kid is goodhearted -- even though he's a bada**). So now you see how it delves into family genre.
Foul language throws a monkey wrench into this because now the script tries to be realistic and 'non-fluffy'. Big mistake: if your film is fluffy, IT'S FLUFFY-- you can't disguise it. If Schroeder thinks a non-Hollywood ending (which is actually becoming Hollywood if you think about it --think the end of "Little Miss Sunshine" if you've seen it) can save this movie from fluff, he's way off. An example of teen issues being dealt with realistically can be found in "L.I.E." or any Larry Clark film. The kids are mischievous and there are CONSEQUENCES from that. Those films aren't fluffy, they are authentic observations of life. "Man in the Chair" is not authentic -- it's Cinema Paradiso light. It treats BIG ISSUES like grand theft auto as petty mischief which is simply NOT realistic. It's more like a character you'd see in a movie like "Jack Frost" -- the Michael Keaton one.
Is it social commentary on nursing home abuse? No. More of a public service announcement. Because it deals with elderly neglect, this film takes on a (1990s-ish) sense of importance. But this is negated because the issue isn't graphically explored within the context of the story or its characters (with the exception of one elderly character's apartment being infested). In fact, the issue is insulted by having characters literally list statistics off Google. High school English essays and PSAs do that, not R-rated films. It's not about nursing home abuse SO DON'T ADD IT INTO THE SCRIPT AND CALL IT SOCIAL CRITICISM. That is called taking the easy way out.
is it an R-rated comedy for adults? No. It's a feel-good film that does not have a realistic tone, realistic situations, or realistic characters. That makes them too two dimensional for an adult movie. Let's face it, these characters belong in "Blank Check"!
There's too many elements being tampered with! What does this film want to be, You pick! The director didn't!
Also, an unfaithful cameo by "Orson Welles" (played by Jodi Ashworth who does a more faithful job sounding like Ben Stiller in "Dodgeball" than he does Welles) and an overall moral ambiguity weigh down this film's potential.
I'd give it a 3 out of ten for technical reasons and effort.
This film suffers from an inappropriate dichotomy: a good-natured family feel married to an F-bomb familiar script. This makes the film come across as indecisive and, as it will probably prove later, unmarketable. Michael Schroeder, who is not necessarily a bad director, crafts a tale of young Cameron Kincade's aspiration to win a student film competition. Also established from the beginning is this crusty old character Flash (played brilliantly by Christopher Plummber) moseying his way through life, taunting old-time actors during classic film screenings. We later find out that Flash is upset because he has been left behind twofold: by Hollywood (he was a former gaffer) and by his family. Kincaid works out an agreement that if Flash helps him win the competition, he will buy him booze and cigars (tough supplies for a 17 year old to buy -- but I won't nitpick).
The shots are beautiful and the performances are tender, but the problem lies within the film's "man in the chair". Michael Schroeder can't decide what he wants to do with this film. The film's indecisiveness comes across in an obvious way: is it a family film? It seems that way because the protagonist is "mischievious"/morally ambiguous (like a mild John Connor) but his crimes are not taken seriously. He is never punished nor has to appear in court (?!). Likewise, a very warm-hearted series of relationships bud between Kincaid and his elderly friends (showing that this kid is goodhearted -- even though he's a bada**). So now you see how it delves into family genre.
Foul language throws a monkey wrench into this because now the script tries to be realistic and 'non-fluffy'. Big mistake: if your film is fluffy, IT'S FLUFFY-- you can't disguise it. If Schroeder thinks a non-Hollywood ending (which is actually becoming Hollywood if you think about it --think the end of "Little Miss Sunshine" if you've seen it) can save this movie from fluff, he's way off. An example of teen issues being dealt with realistically can be found in "L.I.E." or any Larry Clark film. The kids are mischievous and there are CONSEQUENCES from that. Those films aren't fluffy, they are authentic observations of life. "Man in the Chair" is not authentic -- it's Cinema Paradiso light. It treats BIG ISSUES like grand theft auto as petty mischief which is simply NOT realistic. It's more like a character you'd see in a movie like "Jack Frost" -- the Michael Keaton one.
Is it social commentary on nursing home abuse? No. More of a public service announcement. Because it deals with elderly neglect, this film takes on a (1990s-ish) sense of importance. But this is negated because the issue isn't graphically explored within the context of the story or its characters (with the exception of one elderly character's apartment being infested). In fact, the issue is insulted by having characters literally list statistics off Google. High school English essays and PSAs do that, not R-rated films. It's not about nursing home abuse SO DON'T ADD IT INTO THE SCRIPT AND CALL IT SOCIAL CRITICISM. That is called taking the easy way out.
is it an R-rated comedy for adults? No. It's a feel-good film that does not have a realistic tone, realistic situations, or realistic characters. That makes them too two dimensional for an adult movie. Let's face it, these characters belong in "Blank Check"!
There's too many elements being tampered with! What does this film want to be, You pick! The director didn't!
Also, an unfaithful cameo by "Orson Welles" (played by Jodi Ashworth who does a more faithful job sounding like Ben Stiller in "Dodgeball" than he does Welles) and an overall moral ambiguity weigh down this film's potential.
I'd give it a 3 out of ten for technical reasons and effort.