I know it's intentionally campy and there is a time and place for camp, just like there is a time and place for gore and a time and place for gratuitous nudity. But I found myself wondering about every ten minutes or so who in their right mind would have paid good money to see this movie in a theatre. Admittedly I have basically no standards when it comes to selecting movies, so who am I to complain? But there's a huge risk when a movie aims for "so bad it's good" - often it turns out merely bad. Would this movie have been improved by a theatre full of enthusiastic like-minded viewers? Preferably drunk ones? Probably. But on its own merits, there is not much here to recommend.
With a little bit of cynicism on my side, I can see why this movie is so highly rated on Rotten Tomatoes: it's a fairly solid story with all the trappings of America's favourite pastime. Brad Pitt is nothing to write home about here (in fact I don't think any of the acting really stood out). Yet it still works, perhaps mostly in its story than its film making. But it's hardly unique. Kevin Costner's For Love of the Game wasn't nearly the same commercial or critical success, and I'll happily acknowledge Moneyball was the better overall film, but I've never really forgotten the experience of seeing the Costner movie while I'm pretty sure I'll forget about Moneyball before I'm done writing this post.
I confess I knew next to nothing about this before I saw it, and it's probably just as well. I was not prepared for the sadness of the main plot points, though it was softened considerably by some Hollywood-friendly lighter moments. (Like seeing George Clooney trying to run angrily in flip-flips.) There are quite a few young actors in this film and they are the standouts - this role was not a big stretch for Clooney. I don't mean it as an insult: He's proven over the last few years that he can pull off some serious drama when he needs to. Sometimes I see a movie like this and get annoyed with the movie makers for being manipulative. Other times I have to acknowledge that if I felt anything, they've done something right.
OK, this one shouldn't count because I didn't see it at home. This is a retelling of the same Spider-Man origin movie we saw ten years ago with Tobey Maguire. The big difference this time around is the Emma Stone is a thousand times less cloying than Kirsten Dunst (my second least favourite actress behind Julianne Moore). There's not actually much to choose between the 2002 and 2012 versions of this story: Today's is slightly less cheesy with the jokes but all in all one does have to wonder if we're only encouraging the big studios by actually showing up for all these "reboots" of familiar franchises. (Though I am totally down with the rebooted Bond movies. Oh, and Batman. So maybe I shouldn't be so quick to complain.)
I had been hearing about this movie for quite a while. It had the seal of approval from my mother, who has more than a passing interest in Formula 1 given our family's connection to the sport, and also from Jeremy Clarkson, who raved about it on Top Gear. And while I share the interest, albeit at a slightly lesser level, I had been hoping it would stand up as a solid documentary in its own right. There is a wealth of fascinating footage in this movie and it's not all about his death, though of course that's where it culminates. But I still question whether anyone who isn't interested in the first 45 minutes of gawking at F1 celebrities could find it in themselves to enjoy the movie as a whole.
Did I just slag your favourite movie of all time? Tell me about it in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment