Post by No Personality on Apr 9, 2010 8:17:00 GMT -5
Woo-wee...look what we got here. Movie stars; the kind who don't do just every piece of crap they get offered. Foreign locations filmed in would-be exotic locales (I think Italy is ugly and overrated as a va-kay destination, but that's just me). A period film. Based on a somewhat famous novel or series of them. Miramax is involved, Paramount is involved (before The Virgin Suicides single-handedly launched Paramount-Classics?). And I think the guy who directed The English Patient did this. Obviously, I haven't seen The English Patient. I only saw this movie because it was cheap in the Wal-Mart bargain bin (yes, I shop there; God forgive me) years ago and I heard it was a thriller and I couldn't find any interesting-looking horror movies that day. I mean as far as I was concerned, this movie already had at least one strike against it: Matt Damon. I hate Good Will Hunting (the A Brilliant Mind of the 90's). More than I can put into words. I may hate it more than Titanic. And that's a lot. And before this movie, I thought Ben Affleck was infinitely cuter than Damon. So I just spend the money, bit the bullet, took it home, popped it in the player, and of course- watched the bonus features first.
You may have guessed that I'm a fairly cynical guy. You'd be right. I have the occasional weak spot for a chick flick (I loved Pretty Woman). But aside from that, I dislike nearly every mainstream movie trend you can think of. Or it doesn't suit my tastes. Especially war flicks, movies with "I'm in charge here!" histrionics (just short of Basic Instinct, which is still overrated), "I'm gonna make it in the big city" single girl trying to get a record deal epics, and yeah this could go on forever. Then, I get to the classy period films. The costume dramas, old-time war flicks, civil war miniseries. And I just shake my head. Because I don't very well understand the appeal to most of them. They read like books on film. Well then, why don't we just read the book? Actually, I'm a huge fan of expression of ideas through visual mediums. That's really where I take to for my fill of creativity. Maybe one day I'll get out of the cave of darkness to enlightenment... But until then, I'll be-very-wary of stuff that looks like this. With it's classy cover almost subtly suggesting a kind of The Hand That Rocks the Cradle kind of thing. Where Damon will try to split up our happy couple.
Well, you know something? That estimate is off, but not by much. Matt Damon's title character isn't after Gwyneth (did I spell that right?) Paltrow... he's after Jude Law. But of course, he wants even more than that. And after listening to the director's commentary track, we can't even be sure he wanted Jude. Ah, Jude ("don't make it..." , okay, I've officially embarrassed myself enough for one review). Another guy I didn't think was all-that. Though the public used to be in love with him! The way they're now in love with that guy from those Twilight things (I go blank whenever they come up in a conversation, I literally have no idea what the hell they are... Are they actually like a new-millennium Interview with the Vampire? Or more like The Howling III: The Marsupials, where they're trying to get away into nature / the woods? Because like the X-Men, they're hunted and persecuted in polite society?). And I didn't think he was all that fly. Now, I've kinda changed my mind somewhat. I mean, he's got the goods and then some. But you'll freaking hate his character by the time he exits.
Anyway, good news for me watching. It wasn't nearly as boring as I expected it to be. Although, Gwynny was predictable and almost faking oldy-proper-accent just to show off how classy and sophisticated she is. I don't hate her, I just find myself thinking David Fincher knew exactly what to do with her in Se7en and then, we saw all of her we needed to see. Although, I certainly can't and don't fault this movie in any way for what they do with her. At first, she's really motherly and what she's saying makes a lot of sense. And we like her. But damn does she become a huge drag after less than an hour... I gather that was the point. Damon's character, Tom Ripley, does some bad things in this movie and wants to get-away with them. So in that regard, only sans dressing up like a woman and him completely checking-out mentally, this is a little like Psycho and one very long, protracted swamp scene. Where he's always trying to shake things you know are going to get him in trouble and it's all very suspenseful. And Gwynny's the proverbial, ever-returning monkeywrench in all Tom's wonderful plans.
What are Tom's wonderful plans? Well, he's poor. Don't ask me why- he could easily make a royal killing as a male prostitute. I guess there's something in the books that explain why the babe's so pathetic. And he hates being poor. He wants to be rich and enjoy the finer things in life (and this movie couldn't be more overbearing about the way they let us know this). Because he works as a gopher-type servant boy at all these places where rich people go, so he gets to observe them from a distance. And instead of looking upon them with disgust, he lusts to be one of them. Then, one day this rich guy (the actor who plays that car expert for the prosecution in My Cousin Vinny, and that douchebag friend of Robert DeNiro's in Meet the Parents- the asshole doctor or whatever, the guy with grey hair) comes along and asks Tom to go to Italy to find his playboy son (of the Coopers? * No), Dickie (cue Jack McFarland giggle here), and bring him back. See, Dickie is exactly the type of snot-nosed rich punk Tom wants to be- lying on warm beaches all day, getting tanned, sailing on boats, skiing... jet-setting.
So, when he follows the father's orders and gets close to Dickie (by befriending him, and his way of doing that is to confess the father's entire scheme to Dickie and Gwynny - aka: Marge), he's kind of copying him. And of course Tom agreed to do it; Daddy Bigbucks gave him $1,000. Which in this time period was probably like almost $10,000. Maybe more. So, Tom's got more of a key in to Dickie's lifestyle now than Dickie has (only nobody really knows this but Tom) since Daddy is rich and Dickie's just living off Daddy's money. Dickie's that much of a punk (I know the word has different meanings / guess which one I'm using). Tom's the one who spent the time and energy getting approval from people with more power than Dickie for every place he goes to and every thing he does. So he does eventually sorta befriend Dickie. But deep down, Dickie knows that something's really not right with Tom. At first, we just know he's a big wimp. Of course, in Hollywood dramas that always translates to: gay. In the words of Stephanie Tanner; "how ruuuude!" At least he gets to be smart. And cunning. And perhaps, ruthless.
Anyway, as you may have guessed, there is something quite wrong with Tom after all. It comes out somewhere around halfway through the movie. Because he's gay, this also means he's a killer as well. Of course, this is not Hollywood's invention. This movie after all was based on some books. But when Basic Instinct came out in 1992 and all those gay and lesbian protestors were complaining about how in every Hollywood movie, the gay and lesbian characters were always psycho killers... well, 7 years after that comes this and what's really changed? One As Good As It Gets (which was stereotypical as hell!) is supposed to make up for over a decade of bad PR work by Hollywood? I'm starting to think the activists had a point. At least as far as gratitude is concerned (and Philadelphia wasn't any better). Or maybe, Hollywood always loved us (as characters in their movies) and were just trying to make us all that we could be. Meaning, if we're going to attack someone... of course we should kill them. That'll teach 'em never to mess with us again! And like the portrayal of women by so many filmmakers, gay Tom Ripley is played as an enigma. Nobody knows what's goin' on inside his head...
Being a gay man myself, of course this movie proves I - as Tom secretly would, too - champion the killing scenes. That's actually because I'm still somewhat morbid and enjoy seeing someone get-it. Even if it's just for the hell of it. And this movie would have been the ideal opportunity to indulge in that kind of thing. Because unlike the Saw type garbage that flooded the horror-thriller marketplace in the new-millennium, this movie is so classy. With its' lush rural Italian settings (and you have to imagine every house was not-cheap since Dickie "Greenleaf" is willing to stay there). You really don't expect a bloodbath to take place or a large bodycount to accrue. I'd've been willing to settle for the large bodycount (Agatha Christie style). But alas, 4 is Mr. Ripley's limit. With a running time of over 2 hours and 18 minutes, that's an average of 1 dead body per 34:30 (34 minutes and 30 seconds) (I know you're smart enough to know exactly what that means but it's faster to go ahead and spell it out). Not exactly Ten Little Indians, but of course... this is something of a drama.
However, it also borders on that line of the disturbing, wannabe-mindfuck psychological thriller. No, it won't fuck your mind. But it may play with your stomach a little. At least in terms of you recognizing the point in which your heart is supposed to climb up a little bit. Not really into your throat, but close. Probably the edgiest moment of the movie (not dealing with sex) is the one graphic murder scene. It's really gross, for a Hollywood movie that is. I still get ewww's thinking about it. This is because things that look real really gross me out. Special effects that are / look too fake usually take me out of the scene. But this is Hollywood and this movie can actually afford the best realistic-looking skin cutting and blood spurting money can buy. Don't get the wrong impression. A true gorehound (which I'm not, even though I love good gore) won't flinch. But seriously- this looks mighty real. And that's why it's so effective. Surprisingly, it doesn't interrupt the cool, introverted feel of the character-driven stuff. Take this however you will: this movie is a little too polite to fuck anyone's mind. Even though it never really skimps on that trademark 90's polished, upmarketed realism.
But by golly, this thing does have its' powers, if not charms. No yeah- it's not charming. Except to people who really would want to watch this just because it's classy and the actors are so selective about the roles they play. Well actually, there's one charming quality: Cate Blanchett. Obviously, I don't follow the careers of most of these high-class actors, but she is so damned sweet in this movie she more than gives Emma-Gwynny a run for her money in the "you'll fall in love with her the minute she turns up onscreen" category. I don't think she's done very many romantic comedies, but she's endlessly more engaging and likable than Meg Ryan. And you also believe just about everything her character says in the movie. If there is one honest victim of the privilaged upper class in this movie, it's her Meredith Logue. Well, actually there are 2 and maybe I'll spoil that for you later on (I think I probably have to). 2 people you have to feel sorry for by movie's end. But I don't think it's a spoiler for me to tell you now that I don't mean she's a victim as in she loses her life. People like Cate Blanchett do not get killed in thrillers. Unless they're bio-pics.
The real power this movie has is that it damn well knows everything about what Tom Ripley is meant to be feeling and going through. We're supposed to see very little going on with him and I'll bet ya that goes back to the books. But the director (Anthony Minghella, who died a few years ago) is clearly interested in seeing if he can't create a real person from the void that is Tom Ripley. So there are a lot of quirks to the way he executes each of his schemes and it's elaborated on a lot. Mostly through background details and then of course, Matt Damon's desperate act. Do you think he's overacting at all? He's a very external guy. Trying to tap into the internal. He makes a fairly menacing figure, externally. And I buy him as being void-like, internally (because I openly admit the bias where I think good looking people have less going on inside). Perhaps this goes back to the inference I made about male prostitutes. This guy is too freaking good looking to not be one of the In-Crowd (which I'm not saying means he's destined to be a jerk, look at Meredith's character for proof of that).
The scariest thing about how accurate I find this portrayal of a guy with no life is... well... I am Tom Ripley. Apart from physical differences and our jobs and the fact that he really flirts with women. Apart from how far we both go to be one of the normal people. The background details of his life are just downright spooky. Like where Tom is trying to concentrate on studying music while noisy fucking neighbors are fighting. That actually happens to me frequently. Only, I'm obviously studying movies or television (because I think they're less subjective). But the fact that we're not out getting involved in the fights and human relationships, instead we just look at them. From a safe distance. Insecurity issues? Sure. Are we both also highly dangerous psychotics waiting to blow like a ticking time-bomb? Well, my personal theory is that I'm probably a narcissist. Most people are to a normal degree. But again, I'm not normal. And really my point is: I would know how frighteningly true-to-life these details are and how well they can translate even in spite of this being 2010 to... whenever this was meant to take place. Late 40's? Early 50's? (Update: just saw the number "1959" on a letter... the year of Disney's Sleeping Beauty)
And that in a case of nutshells pretty much sums up all you need to know about the movie. You may - like I - be turned off by how classy everything is. No, I won't stop harping on that. But then, I find myself equally turned off by the stuff that tries to be gritty and low-rent to evoke class struggle. I dislike it when things come too easy to a movie. Like, certain movies that have large budgets. They think they can buy anything a movie needs. And so they don't always work as hard to make a movie more than what the budget will buy. I appreciate a movie driven by talent. Or both the talent and the money. So in spite of those movies' attempts to downmarket realism or this movie trying to overstuff a project about human intensity with classy this-that-and-the-other things, it's freaky how smart this movie is. I doubt it'll change anyone's lives. But then, most dramas never do. / (* - reference to the movie Troll 2 and the line the father says about Holly's boyfriend, Elliot)