Pumpkin

Julie Thurber (Marisa Coughlan) intends to lead the Alpha Omega Pi sisters to win against the Tri Omegas by helping mentally challenged athletes for the regional Games. Carolyn McDuffy (Christina Ricci) and Jeanine Kryszinsky (Dominique Swain) disagree with the handicap work. The perky Carolyn is assigned Pumpkin Romanoff (Hank Harris). She finds him to be endearing while he's in love with her. She tries to set up a double-date with Cici Pinkus (Melissa McCarthy) but it goes horribly wrong. She falls in love with Pumpkin horrifying everybody.

Its wacky satire is somewhat funny. The over the top sorority girls get a few laughs. It is Christina Ricci's absolute commitment to this character that truly sells it. She's hilarious. The love affair isn't given much preparation. That's probably the biggest problem. It's written as a given. Also I wish Pumpkin is a deeper character. He's a bit too simplistic. Nevertheless this is funny little dark satire.

"Pumpkin" slips mercurially through the genres ending up somewhere around black comedy with farcical overtones and biting undercurrents as it tells of a privileged, superficial sorority sister (Ricci) who "gets real" and falls for a mentally challenged man (Harris) while coaching him for a Special Olympics type event. The film boldly treads on thin ice, clumsily at times, as it tramples social constructs from decorum to morality while managing to maintain a marginally interesting storyline. Probably a real achievement given the experience of the auteur, "Pumpkin" will likely end up a love it or hate it flick of modest significance. Worth a look as a curiosity if nothing more. (B)

As I watched the film "Pumpkin" recklessly and fearlessly go from somewhat absurd situation to complete and utter silliness, I got the sense that it was made with a sense of joy that few movies are made with these days. The fact that the film refuses to wink at the audience or play funny music during all the absurdity, makes it all the more impressive. Everything in this movie subverts itself - - in the big satiric moments, this is obvious (the car crash after which Kent's face is unscratched), but one must look closely at what seem to be serious or sentimental moments to realize that these are indeed hilarious and subversive moments as well (the romantic dialogue between Carolyn and Pumpkin is completely absurdist if you keep in mind Pumpkin's "problem.")

Indeed, most Americans are used to films cueing them as to when they are being serious and when they are being funny and audiences are trained to watch for this. Because "Pumpkin" doesn't do this, a lot of its humor probably goes over the heads of people not used to anything this "poker-faced" - - especially when done with such sweetness.

The reviews I've read try to condemn "Pumpkin" by pigeonholing it into one genre or another - - either the mean-spirited sharp satire of Todd Solondz or the over-the-top buffoonery of the Farrelly Brothers - - but "Pumpkin" is neither. Indeed, when you realize that "Pumpkin" fits in no box and, in effect, challenges our notion what a movie should be, you're set free and you begin to laugh at what is the funniest film I've seen in a long time.

This is what happens when you make a movie without deciding what sort of movie you're making. Half of Pumpkin wants to be a an over-the-top, artificial satire like Heathers or But I'm a Cheerleader, and the other half wants to be a sweet movie of a shallow girl who grows from her experience with a mentally challenged boy. While it might be possible to make the film's premise work with either of these approaches, you can't use both of them. Scenes that are comedically exaggerated are followed by scenes of painful sincerity. Some actors appear to think they're in a satire while others think they're in a drama, so even individual scenes seem askew. The film probably would have worked best as pure satire, but one suspects the director thought the underlying issues were important and wanted to hammer them home dramatically. As a drama it fails because it makes no sense, Ricci's character isn't given anything convincing to react to; the situation is simply absurd. This is a classic example of failed direction.

Oddly enough, my girlfriend loved this.

Surprisingly sweet dark comedy is really too sentimental at heart to be the edgy piece it was promoted as, and the curious final results show definite signs of indecisive filmmakers (two directors!) at the helm. A sorority princess living in a privileged bubble has her existence turned upside-down after forging a loving relationship with a mentally challenged young man, losing her friends in the process. The direction is erratic, and the tone of the film changes from scene to scene, yet it is certainly unpredictable and the cast is game. I don't know if the focus of the movie was changed midway, but the later sequences have a sweet nuance to them, as if a big softie suddenly took over to see this thing through to a happy ending. And then there's that final shot which, in keeping with the rest of the picture, is amusingly bizarre. **1/2 from ****