Ever since Crash *somehow* won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2006, writer-director Paul Haggis has been on a brutal, fortunately sporadic streak of making bland dramas that feature events that purely happen due to circumstances that are so far off reality they make The Matrix look like a documentary. His latest, Third Person continues his maniacal quest to make the worst dramas of all time. Haggis, after this, The Next Three Days and In The Valley Of Elah can officially be deemed as a man who is doing for dramas what Adam Sandler is doing for comedies and Michael Bay is doing for action films. This is an intensely dull film that thinks leaving the mystery open for interpretation is an excuse to not have anything happen on screen. All three stories are full of non-events that all intersect only because Haggis needed them to in order to have some hint of a plot.
The three stories are as follows---Michael (Liam Neeson) is a washed up, formerly great novelist whose latest fling, Anna (Olivia Wilde) has a strong suspicion that his writing has become too personal of an entity. Julia (Mila Kunis) is an irresponsible mess whose ex-husband Rick (James Franco won't let her see their son, Jesse (Oliver Crouch.) Finally, Scott (Adrien Brody) is a businessman in the midst of a depressing part of his life who helps a woman named Monika (Moran Atias) out, not realizing the entanglements of trouble he's about to get himself into. All three of these stories somehow correlate with one another, the Adrien Brody story correlation being so forced it borders on parody.
While I find the interlocking story set up generally dull and being run on pretensions, I have nothing wrong with it per say. In theory, this type of film is actually a really good idea because it shows three perspectives from three different events leading up to one meaning, thus it should make all three stories a more significant whole. However, as Haggis and many others (because I don't want to come across as if I'm just dishing on Haggis for no reason) present this idea, there are too many moments in which disbelief has to be totally suspended in order to believe these evens would ever happen in the manner that they do. While it is possible for me to suspend my disbelief under these circumstances, it automatically makes the ideas presented significantly less effective. If these events and their respective correlations were presented in a more realistic light, I would be able to observe the overall meaning with a much more perspective and engaged eye. Also, the talented actors do nothing special here. They all play their parts as they need to but I watched the film knowing they're better actors than just the type of actors who play the part how they need to. I didn't even mention Maria Bello as Julia's lawyer or Kim Basinger as Michael's ex-wife.
Yet on top of all these flaws, the main problem is still that the film is just plain dull. I never even came close to caring enough about these characters to be interested in what happens to them or what the meaning of all their stories is. Also, when the film does get to the overall meaning of these stories, it's hard to believe that Haggis couldn't come up with a better twist than the obvious and tired one that is presented. Perhaps Haggis should think about his twist for a minute instead of 15 seconds next time.
I don't want to come across as if I'm calling Third Person one of the worst films of the year or anything. I am certainly not. Every film that came out in January of this year and most that came out in February are enough to hold those honors. This is not a cringe-worthy, awful piece of film making or anything. It's simply that Third Person is far too boring, lazy and predictable to work. In other words, this film is not terribly made because as with Michael's newest writings, it really hasn't been completed enough.
(1 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language and some sexuality/nudity)
No comments:
Post a Comment