You won't like this; hardly anyone does. I didn't.
But it does have some engaging qualities. The first is of course that it is an interesting disaster. Marshall is near the end of his life. He's bright enough to know he has done nothing in film that matters, and he's on record as saying that he would like to. What he knows how to do is weave pathos and comedy, so instead of serving up the same old formula he tries pushing the envelope. He pushed it past his audience and so will sell few tickets. but its a noble effort. Its the kind of failure I applaud.
Its part "Doc Holiday," romantic comedy, part "Flirting with Disaster," (also comedic but more episodically) and with heavy matter.
One reason it didn't work is that the audience doesn't see the groove here, the lightness of darkness. More interesting to me is what I think is a more fundamental failure to connect, the narrative dimension. If you haven't seen this, the narrative follows the Lohan character. What we know, we discover through or from her. She is our on-screen connection to discovery.
The narrative device here is that she tells a character something which we wonder about. Is it true? She's already been well established as a manipulative liar, quite capable of such a thing. Then before the movie is over, we have gone through three major reversals of whether it is true, each shift convincing. Yes, its hard to appreciate deftness and risk in a bad movie, one that even if successful would masquerade as trivial. But the risk is appreciated.
So if you get trapped seeing this, relax into the notion that life is all about whose eyes you can accommodate, and what it means to trust those eyes. Its a far deeper question and more intimate than matters of family. And if you do settle into it, you'll appreciate some small decisions: the redheaded music teacher, the freckle painstakingly painted over the lipstick, the exposure of that first experience in an open boat.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
But it does have some engaging qualities. The first is of course that it is an interesting disaster. Marshall is near the end of his life. He's bright enough to know he has done nothing in film that matters, and he's on record as saying that he would like to. What he knows how to do is weave pathos and comedy, so instead of serving up the same old formula he tries pushing the envelope. He pushed it past his audience and so will sell few tickets. but its a noble effort. Its the kind of failure I applaud.
Its part "Doc Holiday," romantic comedy, part "Flirting with Disaster," (also comedic but more episodically) and with heavy matter.
One reason it didn't work is that the audience doesn't see the groove here, the lightness of darkness. More interesting to me is what I think is a more fundamental failure to connect, the narrative dimension. If you haven't seen this, the narrative follows the Lohan character. What we know, we discover through or from her. She is our on-screen connection to discovery.
The narrative device here is that she tells a character something which we wonder about. Is it true? She's already been well established as a manipulative liar, quite capable of such a thing. Then before the movie is over, we have gone through three major reversals of whether it is true, each shift convincing. Yes, its hard to appreciate deftness and risk in a bad movie, one that even if successful would masquerade as trivial. But the risk is appreciated.
So if you get trapped seeing this, relax into the notion that life is all about whose eyes you can accommodate, and what it means to trust those eyes. Its a far deeper question and more intimate than matters of family. And if you do settle into it, you'll appreciate some small decisions: the redheaded music teacher, the freckle painstakingly painted over the lipstick, the exposure of that first experience in an open boat.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.