So Leo Can Fail, After All! (not really)

I'm just kidding. Leo didn't fail. But after thinking for many years "anything with this actor's gonna be good..." Well, I finally saw the first Leonardo DiCaprio film that I didn't like. Shutter Island, what a let-down. Actually, Leo did the best he could. The problems with the film had nothing to do with him, really. His acting was its usual clever/didn't-see-this-coming mixed with suave. The film however! Yikes! First of all, haven't we seen this one before? A movie about a mental institution with a "missing" patient? Unless this is your Very First Movie, (and how old would you have to be? 5? in which case it would probably scare you), you know how this is going to end.

But I was willing to accept that, as a matter of fact, and go with the flow. I had already heard that the movie was dull and predictable and squishy. I was ready to know the ending from the beginning. I figured there would still be drama to enjoy along the way. There wasn't! An hour into it, I'm sitting there wondering, So when are we going to get to the point? It was the equivalent of a chase scene where the main character is not chasing anyone. You will never know how painful it was for me to watch Leo running around, acting it up, making squinty eyes and hot demands from everyone around him, essentially purposeless. I mean by that: What drove this character? If the story were to be believed, he was a U.S. Marshal trying to solve a missing persons case. Yet he knew from the very start that this person was not really missing. So then, his puzzle to solve became.....? His interest in the place was.....? Right. You kinda had to know the ending, in order to understand what was going on.

Essentially, the reason this film was so terrible was: knowing the ending became a requirement for following the basic plot, and yet, the ending was supposed to be a surprise twist. Hmmmmmmm.....

Interiors and Cassandra's Dream

Looking at the poles of Woody Allen's career is unsettling. At least, it is for Woody Allen fans. "Annie Hall" is one of my all-time favorite movies (as it is for millions of people -- it's a classic), and "Hannah and Her Sisters" is a film I never get tired of watching! Even "Melinda and Melinda" was pretty entertaining. So what the heck happened with "Cassandra's Dream?" This is a pretty standard Allen theme (cf. "Crimes and Misdemeanors," or "Match Point") -- it's basically about murder and guilt (or the lack thereof). We're supposed to see characters so changed (or not) by what they've done that it forces us to reflect on the great existential meaning of life, and so on.... Yet Ian (Ewan McGregor) and Terry (Colin Farrell) are never really in our hearts to begin with, even before they take a life. Ian has absolutely no interesting qualities. So he likes a girl and wants to get away from it all. Big whoop. Who is he, as a person? Who is this Ian guy? His brother Terry's mildly more interesting but in a cliched way -- he's got a gambling problem. OK, and? They're such boring characters in fact, it doesn't seem surprising when they decide to commit murder. Why? Because they don't seem like real people. (And these are not totally untalented actors or anything. Witness Ewan McGregor in "Young Adam!" Or "Trainspotting.") So it doesn't seem like that big a deal what these two guys are doing -- I'm sitting there thinking, just another variation on the standard, but noticeably this time it doesn't call into question any existential truths, nor make me think about the value of life. Could it be that I'm just getting tired of Woody Allen? Have I seen the same plot too many times? Or is it over for him, has he "lost it"? One looks for a career trajectory...

So I also watched "Interiors" - it's not like any of the others. It's not about romantic relationships and it's not about murder. It's one of his earliest films, deeply psychological, and not funny at all (I don't think there's a single moment of comedy in it). It's not about New York, and doesn't use any music. It's different. However. Turns out, I didn't like this film either. It was boring! It consisted of one dreary, weary, life-is-weighing-us-down moment after another... It's supposed to be about a family in crisis, but if I don't care about the characters (the family members), how can I care about the family? And each of the sisters was more boring than the next. I could've taken a snooze while the film was on, and opened my eyes and not missed a thing. Lots of dark, dark shots where you can't see what's going on, anyway.

Also, lots of unfinished business. Did one sister's husband rape (or molest) her sister? (I thought I saw that, but it was so dark I couldn't tell.) What happened there? And what about Michael (Sam Waterston)? He opens the movie; he seems to be an important character - he has a very revealing dialogue with the mother and apparently loves one of the sisters - but he disappears entirely in the final sequences. What happened to him? Where did he go?

So one is forced to ask oneself if Woody Allen was ever that good? Maybe "Annie Hall" was just a fluke? Maybe the only reason I love "Hannah and Her Sisters" is the music? (Count Basie and the like)? It's unsettling.