Director: Steven Soderbergh
Writer: Scott Z. Burns
Runtime: 108 min
I want to get something out of the way.
Yes. Matt Damon put on a lot of weight for this role. And he went from being GQ sexy to DQ frumpy. Let's applaud the commitment, he really dove into his role, for my money, he disappeared into the role--it became sort of like, "Hey, that guy looks like Matt Damon... in a weird way." Just like Charlize Theron before him, critics and audiences everywhere will give him kudos on what a remarkable transformation he went through. But I don't think just putting on some weight and sporting a wicked mustache should earn anyone a round of applause. Damon was good in this movie, not astounding or anything, but good, and the acting should speak for itself, not the body type.
I made the analogy after the movie that it was sort of like seeing a film where the first half is about a jewel thief, showing how he makes his intricate scores, building and showcasing his craft, and the second half is him standing trial for murder. (FYI: That is NOT the plot of this movie. Just being careful.) Why put so much effort into one thing if it's just going to morph into another? I know this movie was based on real events, so there's not a whole lot they can do about it. And in Mark Whitacre's (Damon) story, the two events are much more intertwined, but only in passing comments. I typically expect better from Soderbergh. Usually, I feel his efforts are to show us parts of the story that we didn't even KNOW were parts of the story. But in this case, it feels like they jumped on board with the fast moving train of this comedic portrait they had developed, got Damon all good and fattened up for the character, and then 2/3 of the way through, went, "Holy crap, we're going to have to finagle this ending in here somehow."
That doesn't mean there wasn't anything to like about this movie. It was certainly clever at times, it made me laugh, but sort of in that Burn After Reading-"this is so ridiculous"-chuckle type way. Not in a "this scene is truly hilarious" type way. And the costume designers and set designers absolutely NAILED 1992. Whitacre's ties were unfathomable. I give them all the credit in the world for that, it truly felt like the world I knew as a 7 year old kid. The main problem I have is that it was jumbled. It didn't flow from start to finish. I wasn't sure if I should root for Whitacre or against him. I mostly just identified with the FBI Agents who were assigned his case. And I can't tell if that was the objective. I felt sorry for Whitacre as the story went along, but I didn't FEEL sorry. I wasn't happy for him at any moment, I wasn't sad for him at any moment. And I think it was partially because the typical arc of storyline--the hero's quest--wasn't fully revealed. He was on a quest for something, but kept leaving bits and pieces of it out, until eventually, they all scattered on the floor. I know that was part of what made this case so special--that Whitacre obsessively and continuously lied to EVERYONE, even after he had supposedly turned up his palms--but I think it could have progressed better.
Lots of people were really excited for this movie, myself included. They had a catchy marketing strategy with the 90s retro and the ridiculous Fat Damon shots and the exclamation point. But it just didn't feel like a home run to me. My friend James saw the movie with me, and he loved it, so don't think that my viewpoint is the only one. And Roger Ebert interestingly gave it a glowing A+ review, though from reading it I can't tell why, except that he thinks it was funny. It was worth seeing, but I don't think it'll be talked about in the way that they were hoping it would. And if Soderbergh puts forth another Ocean's 12-level effort like this again, some people are going to start to wonder about his renowned status as a world-class filmmaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment