fatcat-73450

It's rather shocking that a comedy marketed to adults from the 90s could be so vanilla. It's a very level production about a father's reaction to his daughters' wedding.

It's so even-keeled, in fact, that I would even go so far as to say it's usually not funny since rarely does anything outrageous happen. Sure the eccentric and flamboyant Franck is sometimes a little funny and there's the scene with the dogs, but there are so many places where just a little bit more outrageous dialogue or a facial expression could have made it funny but it seems those involved purposefully tried to keep it light.

That being said, it's still a pleasant watch. Of course it idolises a rather ridiculous aspect of US culture in that a wedding must be a lavish, expensive, consummerist affair. The father here and there is made the semi-villain sometimes because he wants to save money by a wife and daughter who are repeatedly trying to cajole him or shame him into spending more money. It's definitely a moral time capsule of practices that are still in force today but slowly fading away.

And for the purposes of this critique, that's what weakens it a bit. It focuses most of its attention on an absurd little expensive ritual and only briefly touches upon more universal and timeless topics such as the fact of having to part with a daughter or whether someone is or is not mature enough at that age to make that decision or who the right person should be.

It's cute, it's vanilla, it's pleasant. But vanilla isn't necessarily bad and here it's satisfying if nothing more.

Honourable Mentions: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987). There's a scene in Father where Martin tries to recreate his infamous rant in the airport from Planes, but it's far more subdued. Looks like the scene made such a splash they were still trying to channel its influence 4 years later.

It's the timeless tale of a lone dangerous creature being hunted and picking off the hunters one by one which had its culmination with Home Alone (1990). In this case, the thing being hunted is Charles Bronson.

Really the only reason to see this film is to view Charles Bronson's gleaning body as he prances around in a loincloth in the desert.

The characters are stereotypes. They're racist and rugged frontiersman who want him dead just because he killed one of the good old boys. Half of them are really mean, the other half have at least a little bit of a conscience.

But that's not enough to make it interesting at all. The characters are very one-dimensional. And I don't know if it's because the sound is obstructive or because they whisper to each other or because their dialogue is simply too removed from the natural way people talk, but it didn't make much sense. It was all trying to convey things on raw emotion and archetyping, but it's a rather tired and predictable plot. And the deaths aren't interesting or anything.

Bare-bones movie that gets a point for Charles Bronson being in it. No more because he barely talks and isn't even on screen that much. It's not really about him. He could have been a white whale for all we get of him.

Honourable Mentions: First Blood (1982) - another gleaning form in a loincloth type of movie, except this one is much better. The traps are very interesting, the chase devolves into a brutal tug of war between two personalities, and John Rambo isn't just some mystical magic man, but deer caught in the headlights you can feel for.

This is a rather complicated and meandering work about what is considered one of the basest of subjects - primitive male lust. The subject matter is usually dealt with in the area of farce or fichera, but in this case we get a compelling and pure drama about it.

The set up is two male friends who are as different as the proverbial "fair boy and fat boy" of the opening of Lord of the Flies. Nicholson plays the aggressive and exciting incubus of a man, Jonathan, while Garfunkel plays timid Sandy. Both of them, of course, want to score, but they use different techniques to try to get it. Sandy takes long walks, has long conversations, and tries to connect on a more emotional level with the woman, whereas Jonathan uses pinache and sex appeal to get what he wants.

And that may be a necessary simplification, because although it rings true, the plot isn't neat at all. Instead it's gritty, with the two men being this or that at any given moment. Oten times smooth Jonathan is burning with dissatisfaction or discombobulation. And just as often awkward Sandy seems to be in control of the situation.

I still don't really know what the film is about after careful reflection, but that's not a problem. It didn't need to be about anything. Both Nicholson and Garfunkel give stellar performances and there's a whole lot of good tension and body language in the spirit of My Night at Maud's (1969). And anyway it's not like it lacks any meaning at all. At the end of the day, human sexuality is messy and ugly indeed. Maybe that was the only thing the filmmaker wanted to convey?

Too confusing and meandering to be among the greats, but nevertheless a satisfying and enticing watch.

Honourable Mentions: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). This film was clearly very heavily influenced by Space Odyssey. It's similarly confusing except it seems to take a good long odyssey into male sexuality rather than into space. The ending is not only confusing, but near the end there's a bit where they are dressed in a rather outlandish manner and seated in a rather outlandishly-decorated home 10 or 20 years after the events of the rest of the film. It seems like the director was trying to convey that this was what the 80s or 90s would look like.