Delirious

Wow, that movie was slow to get going. Sloooooooooooooow.

The only thing that's wrong with this script is the timing of it. Which is, of course, everything.

Ach, it's such a bummer because there were so many things I liked about it!

It takes a long time to get into the characters (and consequently, a long time before the viewer cares about them. After 19 minutes I was about ready to turn off the movie for lack of interest in the characters). Then, once you do start getting to know them it takes a long time for a major plot point to occur (so now we know who they are, but is anything going to happen in this movie?). Then, after quite a few good scenes where the action picks up and we're finally getting involved in the story, there's this weird lull, a slow-down accompanied by some strange tangential filler material. Calm before the storm? Nope. Instead we get a bizarre character twist that feels like we're suddenly watching a different movie.

I guess that means there are two big flaws in the script. One, the timing (pacing) is all wrong. Two, our main character turns into someone else after we've invested a lot of time getting to know him.

Steve Buscemi has appeared in a lot of great movies (Reservoir Dogs, Barton Fink, Fargo) and quite a few terrible ones. Unfortunately "Delirious" goes in the terrible category - but it's not Buscemi's fault! It's all about the script. Buscemi makes us feel weird emotions. That's what he's great at. We can look at him and think, 'Man, you're a weirdo' or even 'You're creepy, dude!' and still be able to relate. He does it again quite skillfully here. He plays a guy who wanted to be a photojournalist and wound up being a paparazzo. He obviously inflates the importance of his work in order to make himself feel better about it. He's got a precarious hold on self-esteem. The smallest insult makes him crumble into misery. Buscemi does a beautiful job making us sympathize with someone who's extremely unlikeable.

Thing is, this character is pathetic in the original sense of the word. Inspiring pathos. So why would he turn psycho killer in the end? Of course he doesn't, really, turn psycho killer (thank goodness). But why does the movie try to make us believe that he would? Why, why, why?

All along the movie is about a friendship. Well, it's also about obsession with celebrity, and feelings of self-worth, and whether or not fame and success are the only thing that will make these characters feel OK about themselves. But it's a friendship. For the first time in his life, Les (Buscemi's character) feels like he's gotten himself a friend, a companion. He's got someone who makes him feel good about himself -- even his dubious career. And when that guy turns out to have a heart, actually caring about celebrities as people, we don't blame him for wanting to turn away from the paparazzo lifestyle. The sad thing is we've come to care about Les, and we don't want to see him abandoned. There's a poignant scene where Les is in a bathroom trying to compose himself so that he can speak articulately to his idol Elvis Costello. This is the Les we know and love.

This is the heart of the movie. His friend will move on without him, precisely because he doesn't have Les's insecurities. This is the story of Les's life. It's realistic. It's human. So why, why, why did someone decide that, after a long lull, Les was going to go psycho killer? Sure, he doesn't actually pull it off, but I'd swear the last sequence belonged to another movie altogether - not the one I was patiently watching, and finally beginning to enjoy. Oh, well.