As an amateur screenwriter, I keep an eye on what’s going on in the business of Hollywood. And from what I’ve read in the last two years, it’s more difficult to sell a spec script, or for that matter, get a movie made these days than during the roaring ’80, when a dipshit like me could get a spec optioned for six figures.
So, when I sat (or should I say endured) Cyrus the other day, the only question on my mind was, “How does this happen?” My only answer: Connections. You gotta have ‘em, or crap like this doesn’t stand a chance.
Think of your favorite movies. Just take some time and reflect on the movies you really love. OK, finished? I’m going to bet that 95% of them involve a protagonist, a really bad-ass antagonist, and something that (in my estimation, and most in Hollywood would agree) is essential for a movie: Conflict. Conflict drives a movie; it’s what draws a viewer into the scene, the next scene, making you “emotionally” involved until (hopefully) a rewarding conclusion.
Believe me, I’m no expert, and I’m not the one getting movies made, but this is a concept, I truly feel, that writer/directors Jay and Mark Duplass have no concept of.
The movie’s plot line revolves around John (John C. Reilly), who’s been divorced from wife, Jamie (Catherine Keener) for seven years—and still hasn’t gotten over it! This, my friends, is what’s called a huge plot hole, in my estimation. Maybe I’m wrong, but seven years is A LONG time.
To continue to pine over your ex (who dumped you and is getting remarried), for seven years? Not buyin’ it. I’ll buy two years, like Miles in Sideways, but not seven, and this happened in the first five minutes into the film. This is a technique to make the audience feel “empathy” for the lost soul. It just made me think the guy’s a total loser who obsesses over objects he can’t have. Christ, even Milton from Office Space could nab another chick in seven years, and he couldn’t even get a damn piece of cake.
As the movie progresses, John ends up at a party, with his ex and her fiancé(Matt Walsh), and, of course, he meets somebody. That somebody is Molly (Marisa Tomei).
OK, now our suspension is getting severely tested way too early in the movie, as Molly takes a liking to John, and they actually have sex that night. So, now we have one of the most beautiful women on this planet banging one of the strangest looking, emotionally broke, financially strapped guys in L.A. Really? In one of the most plastic cities in the world, this happens? Again, not buyin’ it. (Why do writers like Aptow throw premises at us like Katherine Heigl screwing losers like Seth Rogen in Knocked Up? Does this really happen? Maybe in Sacramento, but L.A.? Sure, if he's a famous Producer).
As it turns out, Molly has a son, Cyrus(Jonah Hill). He’s a 22-year-old with no job, has never left the nest, possesses no ambition only to compose strange synth beats with his quite expensive music equipment. Mind you, we’re close to 30 minutes in, and, barring the first scene (a scene we’ve all seen before), there’s literally no conflict, just talking heads spouting boring exposition, and not done very well I might add.
Slowly, we get the feeling that Cyrus, playing it cool, really doesn’t want John around. Whew, finally we can wake up and maybe get into this movie. Well, in short, what could have been a really funny and conflict ridden movie turns out to be a dud. The total time of cognitive arousing amusement lasts maybe 10 minutes at best.
Another piece of exposition that Molly spits out in act one, is that, “No man has slept over [at her house] since Cyrus was born.” You’re telling me that a woman of her beauty doesn’t have guys chasing her to her house and banging the doors down? We're talking twenty-two years! That’s the piece of exposition that took me out for a walk, and the only reason I continued to watch, was because I had a meeting and had time to kill.
Also, there is a very unnerving aspect regarding the relationship between Molly and Cyrus: It feels damn close to incestuous. And with all this exposition flying around like fire flies, we are never let in on the minute detail of how the Molly pays the bills. She has no job, nor does Cyrus. I love it when screenplays leave out insignificant morsels of information such as how somebody supports themselves. It just is, and that to me, is arrogant film making.
Finally, the audience was “ahead” of the movie, meaning everybody in the theater knew what was going to happen before the event occurs. I actually herd a senior citizen whisper to her friend what was going to transpire in a scene regarding John’s tennis shoes three seconds before it actually happened. This continued throughout the entire movie. If Grandma is ahead of hot-shot screenwriters, I'm guessing they tossed the first draft up on the big screen and left the rewriting ... well, maybe there was no rewriting. This is a mortal sin. There were absolutely no twists, no reversals, nothing to engage the viewer—except Marisa Tomei’s stunning beauty. And maybe that’s what the film makers were banking on.
The direction is some of the worst I’ve ever seen. These guys have made some indie movies and went for that feel with the way the movie was filmed. It didn’t work. The lens was constantly moving to an extreme close up and then back to a fuller shot. This “cool” technique gave me a headache, and I damn near felt seasick as I left the theater.
Finally, Jonah Hill needs to go on a diet. I know he’s on a roll with two movies out now (the other is Get Him to the Greek), but he should seriously consider discontinuing shoving butter laden "rolls" down his throat.
As far as characters go, Cyrus was the most "entertaining." I wouldn’t spend five minutes with any of the others. (Except Marisa, in real life, which will never happen).
The critics gave this movie an 80 on RottenTomatoes, which, to me, proves they want to be “cool” by recommending an “indie” film. My question to them is: “Are you aware this is a mainstream movie?”
My recommendation: Don’t “waste” a dime on this mess.
I give it zero beers out of a six pack.
Footnote-- I'm aware there are thousands of movies that are similar to this one in that they attempt to "break away" from the Hollywood "formula." Cyrus is billed as a comedy, so, yes, they don't have to follow Blake Snyder's "Save The Cat" formula such as Miss Congeniality. But the question is, "Which movie made more money?" Cyrus won't come close to recouping it's budget. It's just too quirky and plain not funny enough to get the much needed "word of mouth" that a movie like this must have to succeed, where as the latter made millions and spawned a sequel.
God love Noah Baumbach. The Squid and the Whale was a great movie.
Margot at the Wedding was a huge letdown, and Greenberg didn't do well at the B.O.; or Nichole Holofcener, writer/director of Friends With Money and Please Give, among others.
I view these two writer/directors as the most successful, at this point in time, in the sub-class of indie/mainstream movies. My question is: "Given the economic climate, how much longer can they continue making movies that don't make money?" We all know what Hollywood's about, and artistic creativity isn't first on the list.
I'm glad they're out there, continuing to carry the indie banner; my only concern is that they might try to push the boundaries so far that Producers just pull the plug on them, effectively shutting down indie movie making altogether. Then again, these are two very established film makers, and what does it take to make movies like these: Connections. It all comes down to connections.
And if you're a nobody, like me, a killer script might help.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment