Change Your Image
Adrian_Atkins
Reviews
Crash (2004)
Never confuse earnest with honest
Art is honest. The antithesis of art is earnestness.
This film is like a man who beats his wife pleading for her to not leave him. It is full of earnestness, but is not necessarily honest.
This film is pleading: please like me! Please think I'm brilliant! Please give me an Oscar! I promise to use every cliché, every stereotype, every hackneyed plot device and I will make sure that you get the message loud and clear.
Crash is manipulative, didactic trite. It is an insult to the art of cinema. The worst part about it is that it pretends to be brilliant, and for the most part gets away with it - it fooled a lot of people.
Watch it closely. Study it. It is a textbook example of how not to make a film.
Control (2007)
A strangely ordinary man
About a third of the way through watching Control, it occurred to me: if this film were about somebody who wasn't famous, it would be absolutely dull. As depicted in this film, Ian Curtis was a very uninteresting person. Besides being the lead singer of Joy Division (and I will take nothing away from the music) he did nothing extraordinary with his life. Nor was he an extraordinary person. He displayed no feats of courage, no wit, he didn't stand for anything, was indecisive, lacking in charm, passionless, an atrocious father, rarely smiled, and possessed no ambition. I can see why he killed himself.
So the question remains: why are we watching this film?
I have the feeling that there was a lot more to Ian Curtis than nice cheekbones, intense stage presence and epilepsy. And if not, then a point should be made of that. Is this the story of the shy kid who wanted to be David Bowie but then couldn't handle the fame? Was it just the pills that sent him spiraling? Is it a comment on just how normal he actually was? This film has no angle. The acting is excellent. The black and white photography is lovely. The sound design is superb. But all these components are masking the fact that this is simply an astonishingly banal script. There were scenes and dialogue that left me scratching my head, thinking why did we have that? It feels like a first draft. There is no drama in most scenes - for example, the exchanges Ian and Anook are incredibly lifeless.
In spite of all this, the film is utterly convincing. It's just also utterly uninspired. I think I will read a Curtis biography now and find out what really made him tick.
Stranger Than Fiction (2006)
A Fair Effort
Stranger Than Fiction is a fair attempt. The premise is very appealing but ultimately one gets the sense that it is a gimmick. One gets the sense that the book Emma Thompson is writing is superior to the movie we are watching. If so, then why not make a movie on that?! And why not kill Will Ferell if that is ultimately the path to greatness. The film would rather hang in its own cleverness than dare step into a more profound terrain. It is conscious of what it is trying to say and thus reduces itself from being true art. It over-simplifies everything by imposing its sentimental and simplistic message and spelling out its themes. It doesn't simply let things be as they are. The world is far more complex and fascinating than to be reduced to this paint-by-numbers storytelling. And given its literary awareness, that is hypocritical.
Emma Thompson is bad. Her acting seems affected and is somewhat irritating. And when she meets Will Ferrel in person, she acts so theatrically that it is hard to believe. Added to this, this event doesn't follow the logic of the film. How is any of this possible? And when I say possible, of course I don't mean the whole premise, because any premise is valid - they simply must remain consistent to their own machinations - and this one doesn't. The direction is uninspired. The shots are uninteresting and obvious. The attempt to create a surreal world through white clinical sets and baron spaces is not consistent or fully explored through mood.
Maggie Gyllenhaal turns in a fine performance although I find her attraction to Will Ferrel a little difficult to buy. What is it that she suddenly finds attractive in him? Also, the theme of a person not living their life because they are such an exaggerated "by the clock" rigidly organised person is such a clichéd example of a person not living. In order to truly live, one does need structure and discipline, so these are not the things one must give up in order to be free. A simplistic notion.
Finally, Will Ferrell himself just isn't a good actor. He is always "acting". His persona never comes through by allowing himself to "be". Although he has toned down his theatrics, what is left is a blandness that, yes, suits the "character" but also renders the character rather one-dimensional.
Stranger Than Fiction undoubtedly draws its parallels or influences to the work of Charlie Kauffman, particularly Adaptation. But without the depth and flair of Spike Jonze or Michel Gondry, we are left with a paper-thin, uninspired lackluster experience that not even the always terrific Dustin Hoffman can redeem. 5.5 out of 10.