Seen 4/20/15
0.5/4
This movie is either very smart, or absolutely stupid--the stupidest movie I have seen in months or years. I'm pretty convinced of the latter.
What it depends on is whether or not it knows it's terrible, incoherent, amoral, ridiculous in every sense... and this largely relies on Bill Murray, who starred and co-wrote the script. Does he know that he gave one of the worst performances I have ever seen in a movie? Does he know that his script adaptation omits every bit of sense that I'm sure the novel granted the characters and plot, and ends up looking like a giant, disgusting heap of garbage?
If the filmmakers had any idea what they were doing, I would applaud them infinitely for their subtlety. If there is anything to this movie (disregarding what it robs [not takes, robs] from the book), it is disguised as an unforgivably unenjoyable and worthless piece that cannot be considered art, nor entertainment, nor even film.
I'm serious.
I could not stand a second of this movie. I watched it in an Existentialism class and wanted to leave, literally, after the first five minutes. But I stuck on, trying to pull some philosophy from it, or to find some sort of coherency in the mess. All I could possibly find was what was obviously straight from the novel. I can see how a couple of lines would work in a sensible rendition of the story, and the story itself would be alright with good direction. But it's as if Bill Murray stole three famous lines from an acclaimed novel and wrote in a bunch of stupid Bill Murray jokes and then pretended to act for two hours. I can't believe it.
Either this movie is crap, or I'm wrong and should never review another film.
I'm serious.
~~To clear something up, I was saying that this movie is only forgivable if it knows how bad and senseless it is--- by this I mean that if its objective is to be absurd and amoral, as is the case with most existentialist films, then it is doing its job, and doing it with amazing subtlety. If that is the case, then I respect it highly. But I am convinced otherwise. I think that the only existentialism came from W. Somerset Maugham, and the movie ruined itself. I think that the writers and actors and director are not talented, and perhaps even committed a poor and inaccurate reading of the text. I can't think of a greater sin in cinema.
I recall this one being a pleasant time for me. I was really into the girl BM was involved with--though I don't recall any of her characteristics. I'm almost certain the 1946 film Jessen clowned on is fantastic; I've been meaning to see it for years.
ReplyDeleteNow that you say that, I also remember that there was something interesting about her, but don't remember what, and it was clearly overshadowed for me. I don't remember Jesson talking about the earlier one. If you mean he scorned it, I don't know why he would -- it was nominated for some Oscars, which, as far as I understand, was his entire justification for showing us The Best Years of Our Lives (also 1946, apparently).
DeleteIn particular he mocked its fake-looking sets. TBYOOL is a good comparison point though. I guess that suggests he didn't have a total distaste for classical hollywood (which was lurking around in my mind)--just for certain aspects of its oldfashionedness.
DeleteI have no idea what his tastes were. Maybe that's fine in principle for a philosophy professor, if they let the class fill the void with discussion. But that didn't really happen either. Consequently nothing really made sense in that course, and Jesson didn't really offer any help. Maybe that'd be cool if the film selection was really subtle (everyone fend for yourselves and try not to drown in this inscrutable collection of film and text), but mostly it seemed obvious or superficial.
Delete