Outline: With mental difficulties following a car accident, once promising high school hockey star Chris Pratt (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) works as the night janitor in a small town bank. He meets Gary (Matthew Goode) and Luvlee (Isla Fisher), who lure him into a heist of said bank.Writer-director Scott Frank's directorial debut reminds me, for better or worse, of Memento. Leonard couldn't form new memories due to an injury, so he used repetition and conditioning to replace what he lost. Although not entirely the same, Chris has problems with his short term memory, using similar techniques to get him through the day. His memories from before the accident seem to be crystal clear, but afterwards, he has enough trouble with everyday tasks. His squeaky brakes are a constant reminder - he probably doesn't remember to get them checked, and no one has yet pointed out the problem to him.
There's a lot of details like that one packed into the script. A lot of work goes into setting up the difference between Chris's disability (for lack of a better term) and being dumb or absentminded. It would come across as dense, but Frank spaces out the clues nicely against the frigid Manitoba landscape (a stand-in for Kansas).
Rumour has it that this movie isn't well reviewed, and I can see
why that might be. So much goes into making the first two acts messy and realistic that the tidy Hollywood ending feels disappointing. There are multiple points where we see Chris and the plot race right by reality, so he can apply the lessons he has been learning along the way. Even so, how can anyone notice these oversights while they are watching Gordon-Levitt? What he does on the screen goes beyond acting - I'm not even sure there are words for it. I read in an interview recently that he finds one psychological element at the centre of his characters and clings to it. I can agree to that, but what he does is so much more complex. It is nothing short of captivating: you can barely remember to breathe when you try to take in everything he is doing.
why that might be. So much goes into making the first two acts messy and realistic that the tidy Hollywood ending feels disappointing. There are multiple points where we see Chris and the plot race right by reality, so he can apply the lessons he has been learning along the way. Even so, how can anyone notice these oversights while they are watching Gordon-Levitt? What he does on the screen goes beyond acting - I'm not even sure there are words for it. I read in an interview recently that he finds one psychological element at the centre of his characters and clings to it. I can agree to that, but what he does is so much more complex. It is nothing short of captivating: you can barely remember to breathe when you try to take in everything he is doing.I think Goode heard the rumour that he's the new Hugh Grant and decided to go the other way. A close cut and an American accent later, Goode is nothing but slippery, wiry energy and menace. He doesn't have to play it as close to the vest with Chris, and that makes him all the more dangerous.
Can someone tell me if Fisher always talked with that baby voice or if it was for the character?
On the plus side, Jeff Daniels is a hoot as Chris' blind roommate. He should always be so loose.
If you take the time to look back on it critically, you can see where the cracks begin to show, where decisions were made to make the movie more exciting instead of more realistic. Nevertheless, it's awfully thrilling in the moment. Sometimes, that's enough. B+
No comments:
Post a Comment