Saturday, April 10, 2010

Americana oversimplified


Tully (2000) must have been on my Netflix que for years and years before finally making its way to the number one spot and arriving at my door. I don't remember why I put it on my que nor when I put it there, but its long journey finally came to an end after sitting on my coffee table for nearly a month. And lets just say it wasn't worth the journey.

Tully surrounds Tully Coates Jr. a good looking farmers son from rural nowhere trying to make sense of his families past without sacrificing his future. Often times I will point out movies that have achieved a level of greatness in filmmaking, whether it be in writing, acting, style, tension, pace and point them out as a means to learn from them. Sometimes I think one can learn even more from a poorly executed film, and Tully has film-school 101 mistakes in spades.

I don't want to harp on the movies flaws too much because I do understand that it was a low budget feature. And do I ever understand the difficulties of making a low budget film, but what I can't understand is the overwhelming support and adulation for this film from both the public (imdb score) and certain critics I respect (Roger Ebert). So for the sake of argument lets get into where this thing falls short.

At first Tullys biggest problem is being too good looking and not knowing what girl to sleep with in the town. Then we find out that his fathers farm owes 300,000 dollars and his father doesn't seem to know why. Then comes the exposition and the staring. Literally the whole film goes a little something like this, character gets upset about the past, sits on the hood or sometimes roof of his car looks out onto the picturesque landscape and tells his or her feelings to whoever is there with them. Then cuts to them staring and thinking. About what we don't know. Anything relatively interesting that may of happened, happened in the past and is only shared to us through conversation. I wanted to see those scenes! The scenes they described, not them sitting on the hood of their vehicles describing them poorly. If you are writing a screenplay you don't need to have the characters say stuff like "what is wrong" every ten minutes when we the audience already know what is wrong, and if your going to have a film where the past comes back to haunt you, use flashbacks, one can only take so many scenes of characters, being poorly acted, talking about things we are not seeing and then how it makes them feel. And if you are going to have long shots of people staring out into space, at least try and communicate a bit what they are thinking. It is melodrama at its worst.

And to top all that off, the score for this film felt like it could have been done by 12 year old who just sat at piano and randomly made sounds. The score tried to be a mask and tell us what to feel but it couldn't even do that correctly.

Why Tully had any success at all is beyond me. Maybe because it is so uniquely American and sad that people felt like they had to like it. I wouldn't even recommend skipping this film, I almost want people to watch it to learn what not to do if they find themselves writing a script.

*1/2

Eisenberg in a theme park again


After Adventureland I thought I could safely put Jessie Eisenberg's carni character James Brennan safely in my memory bank somewhere between nostalgia and young adult angst, and there he would stay safely tucked in a warm retrospective blanket. Then, not even a year later, comes along Zombieland (2009) where Eisenberg is back in a theme park, this time he is named Columbus and now instead of learning about life, love and friendship he is being chased by horrific zombies trying to rip his larynx from his throat.

So I have adjusted enough to try and review Zombieland on its own merits. And what I have come up with is that this film is a fun, ultra-stylized, kinetic piece that ultimately feels hollow. Right from the get go director Ruben Fleischer pulls no punches when it comes to declaring exactly what your expectations should be. It starts out with some ultra-realistic gore, and then transitions to a sequence where Columbus is explaining to the audience the rules of surviving zombies. It is like Fleischer, right out of the gate says "have fun with this movie, if you don't you are missing the point, idiot". Maybe he wasn't as hostile about it, but I need to make my points too.

And I did had a lot of fun with the movie. Every self referential, winking moment made me either laugh or smile. Zombieland is a series of great "look how fun we are making post-apocalyptic zombie ridden society sequences", especially (SPOILER ALERT) the great Bill Murray cameo.

Eisenberg is good hear, but we have seen him play this virgin ridden character before. I hope he doesn't fall into the Michael Cera trap where he gets type cast, because he is way to talented for that. Woody Harrelson has never been more entertaining as a man who has found his true calling in killing zombies. And what really translates is it seems like everyone involved was having just as much fun making it as I was watching it.

Where Zombieland fell short for me and where a movie like Shawn of the Dead ultimately works is with the balance between the characterization and the reality of the world they are in. I felt with Zombieland they had the opportunity to actually incorporate a plot and form some real relationships between the characters, but instead any plot or relationship was just their to connect the clever zombie related incidents.

It is certainly not a waste of time to watch Zombieland because while you are watching it you will be entertained, but if you are like me will long for something more.


***