Monday, April 25, 2005

Interpret This, Tool!

It's Monday and thus time to discuss Jason's forays into the outside world, which invariably means a movie review, since I never actually leave the house anymore, lest it be to the movie theatre or a place that sells food.

The subject this week? The Interpreter.

I require some background ramblings. In theory, I believe that you shouldn't let the actors/actresses in a movie change your expectations of said movie. There should be a level of removal and purity about movies, in that they should be able to stand alone and not need a big name to influence you one way or another.

In practice, more and more my feelings are very directly tied to the actors that a movie bills. Some cases so much so that I'll:
  • A) go to a movie that I'm almost sure will suck, but I support the actor enough that I want them to keep doing their thing so I spend my money anyway (See: Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Completely Unfunny) or
  • B) avoid a movie that theoretically looks like it could be good, but my ire for the actor makes the entire enterprise seem like work (i.e. The Aviator (DiCaprio, blech) or Fever Pitch (goddamn Jimmy Fallon. Note: you are not 12. Jim. Or James. Grow up and get a real name. Also: stop sucking.)

This long ramble is just here to show (besides my many psychoses) that the concept of famous people has been influencing my movie choices to an unfortunate degree. And with The Interpreter, there is the added problem that the preview was seriously shown in front of every single movie I've seen at the theatre in the last 4 months. Which is an insane level of promotion and makes me even less inclined to see it. But the marketing worked, apparently, and off I went.

Now, the expectations were very low due to many of these factors: I felt vaguely coerced into seeing it by the trailers, I have an intrinsic and unreasonable dislike of Sean Penn (I've seen him in, what, two movies? And yet, ugh. I think it is wrapped up in the Oscars/public persona, vibe, but it is completely unwarranted, and totally real.), and I have been burned by Nicole Kidman in the past, despite my general love for her.

But it was really good. Like, almost excellent for what it was. Compelling and well acted and very authentic. And yes, Sean Penn bugged a little, but Nicole was remarkable. The storyline was a little overdrawn, contrivedly paced (every 15 minutes on the dot a new piece of information was given, to slowly fill in all the pieces) and the final scene was one scene too much, but on the whole, I was very impressed.

And since I came in with such low expectations, I was totally blown away. There was just no frame of reference to scale it to, y'know? Like, we're building to the climax and I'm totally bouncing in my seat nervously, actually invested in this movie. I mean, what's up with that?

So. Yeah. Completely approve of this movie.

Wow. That was way more talking than needed to be done.

Tune in next week when we find out if my ever expanding unease for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy turns out to be completely warranted or just another sign of my growing paranoia.

1 comment:

erin said...

I will also keep my fingers crossed for hitchhikers...here's to being good. OH, and the porno guy from Love Actually being Arthur.