5/10
Fine performances but the movie fails to deliver something deeper
26 February 2023
This film adaptation of David Foster Wallace's "Brief Interviews with Hideous Men" is turned into a lackluster film on the hands of actor John Krasinski, who writes and directs here making his directorial debut (he also has a small yet pivotal role). It's a pitiful disappointment that slightly wastes the talents of everyone involved, and also makes waste of good and thoughtful ideas. It's not a total disaster, I've seen worst in similar themed films or not, but it certainly viewers wanting for more, both for its attacks on men's point of view on women but also because the cast involved hadn't got much to work with - although some actors manage to shine through their monologues.

Julianne Nicholson stars as the interviewer who selects several men to talk about something from their personality, which can vary from relationships with their wives, lovers, girlfriends or anything related with their views on male power structure or its frailty. This is a college report she's preparing for a teacher (Timothy Hutton) but also a personal quest of hers in trying to understand the male psych after being dumped by her boyfriend (Krasinski, playing an almost complete opposite of his tender/likable characters). Neurotic, misogynist, misantrophes, affected, pitiful men come her way during many random interviews that reveal plenty to us in the audience but doesn't seem to affect anything on her or any indicative that she's definitely learning something with their experiences. She points her camera, gets her interviews of which we never see her questioning them neither makes some remark about what's being said and the men just blurt out some thought that comes to their minds, almost as if being analyzed by a shrink.

Anyway, the movie doesn't connect things in an accessible way and the formula gets tiring after a while as very little of the young woman's life progresses. Some of the interviewed men are part of her circle of friends, and others she just bump from place to place such as the waiters/friends (Lou Taylor Pucci and Max Minghella). Those two are quite special since they're not actually interviewed. Krasinski makes them pop time and again in different scenarios, sometimes interacting with other characters but most of the time they address to us in the audience sharing their thoughts about the differences between men and women, how they act and react towards them. I didn't read the whole Wallace book but this part in particular I followed there and it's interesting because the dynamic is different from the rest since they act alongside rather than a series of monologues as the interviews are presented.

What bothered me the most was in seeing Julianne's character. The main issue is to find out if she actually learn or grows with those interviews. Does she evolve in any way, shape or form? A simple pay-off should've come in the movie because the film format demands it since it's not a novel; a change could have happened, or at least her teacher saying about her grade or going into a deep discussion about anything she collected through her work. Instead, we are left empty and judgemental, highly critical about men's role in society, the toxic masculinity that only serves to affect women without those guys realize the internal damage they can also cause on themselves.

But the movie isn't all wronged. There are sheer moments of brilliancy through the monologues delivered by Frankie Faison sharing a past reflection of his father as poor hotel worker who's invisible to the eyes of the wealthy clients yet necessary enough to handle towels and carry bags; Dominic Cooper's dual moment where he presents a dramatic story about a man who hurt a women in his life (his segment is somewhat crazed since he keeps changing the facts from his story, and this also has to do with the fact he's writing a reactionary work of which Julianne has to evaluate and she doesn't want to); and Krasinski giving himself the greatest monologue of the piece. Let's face it: he gave himself the best role in the movie and weird as it may sound: he plays a jerk but one with intense reasoning that you almost feel sorry for the guy.

And it isn't a total waste of Krasinski's efforts in trying to create a good script or a good adaptation. He makes interesting and acceptable choices since he doesn't follow the book idea (which could have resulted in a good movie although boring in a trapped format where actors address themselves to the camera). Instead, he presents some interviews, the waiters make a connection with the audiences, and a couple of others make the interactions along with the leading woman such as her teacher who has a frank talk with her relating to his pregnant wife which almost gave him a panic attack in wondering if he could love her again after her body growth. The dialogue is perfectly captured and verbatim from the book.

Here's a slightly ambitious project with a stellar cast that sadly never satisfies, never fully pleases its audiences. The material is good but its translation just hit some bits but mostly it's a miss. If the ultimate reaction must come from us rather than the student and her project what can we say that we learned from those men? Well, that they are pathetic waste of spaces, some are just fine but overall they're far away from redemption or worthy of sympathy. As for our master and commander, he evolved to become a talented director, "The Hollars" is an amazing dramatic comedy that needs to be seen. 5/10.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed