I couldn't care less
I've recently seen a spate of movies by which I'm at least vaguely annoyed because the characters that I assume I'm supposed to care about are completely one-dimensional. And I don't care about them at all, or see why I should care about them, and even if these were otherwise good movies (which I don't think applies, actually), I'd hate them a little just for being so lazy about writing these characters:
1. Cheryl Hines, RV. (I know, I know. It was what was playing at the drive-in, though!)
I kind of like Cheryl Hines, generally; I don't love her, but I think she's fine and interesting and funny. In this movie? Just spoiled and bitchy. Nothing else. Why should I root for Robin Williams -- whom I find exhausting, and to whom I could never, never be married -- to keep his family intact when Cheryl's character is such an ingrate, wholly unsupportive, and just downright snotty for no apparent reason. "Wah, wah, wah, I wanna go to Hawaaaaaaaaiiiiiii! But I don't want you to work so much, and I am not going to get a job, but screw you, Robin, for ruining our family vacation to save your job so I can sit on my butt all day eating bon-bons and our kids can go to college."
It's just insane; she has zero redeeming qualities, and the storyline (such that it was) would've worked just as well if her character had been more sympathetic.
2. Mark Ruffalo, Rumor Has It. (I know, I know. But we got it through Blockbuster Online, so it's not like we really paid for it, though!)
I really like Mark Ruffalo; I loved him in 13 Going on 30 and in Just Like Heaven. He was a little mopey at the outset in both of those, but he was layered and interesting and charming and ultimately totally lovable in both. But in Rumor Has It? He was just...there. He had no personality, no sense of humor, no fire, no charm, no appeal. Nothing. He was a good sport about hanging out with Jennifer Aniston's dad, and that's pretty much it. Ugh.
As creepy as it was, I had no reason not to support Jen's fleeing to Kevin Costner, who was charming and intriguing and successful and clearly into her, and no reason to feel like she'd made a good choice by crawling back to Mark in the end. Why? Because...he wasn't a total jerk, and he professed to love her? I'm sorry, but "I'm a nice guy who'll be faithful to you" doesn't cut it, in my book. Maybe if you're, like, 80 years old and you marry for companionship, fine, but for Jen's character? Settling. Ugh. Nice is necessary, I guess, but certainly not sufficient.
3. Doogal the Dog, Doogal. (I don't know; just go with it).
Doogle looked pretty promising, actually. It's an animated film with lots of the characters voiced by actors I really like: William H. Macy, Chevy Chase, Judi Dench, Jon Stewart as the evil dictator. How could they miss?
The premise is that this shaggy dog, Doogal, unwittingly unleashes some magic that traps his best friend, a little girl named Florence, in a carousel, and Doogal and his other friends set off on an adventure to undo the spell. Which is a fine story, but it was executed all wrong. Most kid-friendly animated movies throw in some subtle but smart puns and double-entendres to keep the grown-ups entertained; in Doogal, the puns were thrown in so obviously and heavy-handedly that it actually made me cringe. They just tried way too hard. And they didn't try at all to make Doogal a likeable character, or even a character at all. He's a doofy dog who likes candy and wants his friend to be saved, mostly because he can't bear to think of not having her around to play with. He's selfish; he's lazy; he's stupid; he's cowardly, and he doesn't really grow out of any of that throughout the movie. He's not a horrible dog, and they tell me he's well-intentioned, but he's not in any way remarkable. Again, why should I be rooting for you? And I didn't see enough of Florence to root for her; I only have this least-engaging-title-character-ever character telling me I should care. Not good enough. Not by a long shot.
I'm not saying that every character -- or even any character -- has to be perfectly likeable for me to enjoy a movie (I loved Match Point, for example). I love a good villian, and my favorite characters -- in any medium -- are those who are flawed and complicated and real, not all good or all bad. But there has to be something to them, and there has to be something about them that engages me, that makes me understand them or sympathize with them, that makes me cheer for them. So quit being so lazy, please, Hollywood.
Or maybe I just need to be more discriminating, because I really should've known better to expect much of any of these movies. I don't know, though; plot holes or mediocre writing or overacting, I can overlook; at least give me characters I can care about, a little, one way or the other.
1. Cheryl Hines, RV. (I know, I know. It was what was playing at the drive-in, though!)
I kind of like Cheryl Hines, generally; I don't love her, but I think she's fine and interesting and funny. In this movie? Just spoiled and bitchy. Nothing else. Why should I root for Robin Williams -- whom I find exhausting, and to whom I could never, never be married -- to keep his family intact when Cheryl's character is such an ingrate, wholly unsupportive, and just downright snotty for no apparent reason. "Wah, wah, wah, I wanna go to Hawaaaaaaaaiiiiiii! But I don't want you to work so much, and I am not going to get a job, but screw you, Robin, for ruining our family vacation to save your job so I can sit on my butt all day eating bon-bons and our kids can go to college."
It's just insane; she has zero redeeming qualities, and the storyline (such that it was) would've worked just as well if her character had been more sympathetic.
2. Mark Ruffalo, Rumor Has It. (I know, I know. But we got it through Blockbuster Online, so it's not like we really paid for it, though!)
I really like Mark Ruffalo; I loved him in 13 Going on 30 and in Just Like Heaven. He was a little mopey at the outset in both of those, but he was layered and interesting and charming and ultimately totally lovable in both. But in Rumor Has It? He was just...there. He had no personality, no sense of humor, no fire, no charm, no appeal. Nothing. He was a good sport about hanging out with Jennifer Aniston's dad, and that's pretty much it. Ugh.
As creepy as it was, I had no reason not to support Jen's fleeing to Kevin Costner, who was charming and intriguing and successful and clearly into her, and no reason to feel like she'd made a good choice by crawling back to Mark in the end. Why? Because...he wasn't a total jerk, and he professed to love her? I'm sorry, but "I'm a nice guy who'll be faithful to you" doesn't cut it, in my book. Maybe if you're, like, 80 years old and you marry for companionship, fine, but for Jen's character? Settling. Ugh. Nice is necessary, I guess, but certainly not sufficient.
3. Doogal the Dog, Doogal. (I don't know; just go with it).
Doogle looked pretty promising, actually. It's an animated film with lots of the characters voiced by actors I really like: William H. Macy, Chevy Chase, Judi Dench, Jon Stewart as the evil dictator. How could they miss?
The premise is that this shaggy dog, Doogal, unwittingly unleashes some magic that traps his best friend, a little girl named Florence, in a carousel, and Doogal and his other friends set off on an adventure to undo the spell. Which is a fine story, but it was executed all wrong. Most kid-friendly animated movies throw in some subtle but smart puns and double-entendres to keep the grown-ups entertained; in Doogal, the puns were thrown in so obviously and heavy-handedly that it actually made me cringe. They just tried way too hard. And they didn't try at all to make Doogal a likeable character, or even a character at all. He's a doofy dog who likes candy and wants his friend to be saved, mostly because he can't bear to think of not having her around to play with. He's selfish; he's lazy; he's stupid; he's cowardly, and he doesn't really grow out of any of that throughout the movie. He's not a horrible dog, and they tell me he's well-intentioned, but he's not in any way remarkable. Again, why should I be rooting for you? And I didn't see enough of Florence to root for her; I only have this least-engaging-title-character-ever character telling me I should care. Not good enough. Not by a long shot.
I'm not saying that every character -- or even any character -- has to be perfectly likeable for me to enjoy a movie (I loved Match Point, for example). I love a good villian, and my favorite characters -- in any medium -- are those who are flawed and complicated and real, not all good or all bad. But there has to be something to them, and there has to be something about them that engages me, that makes me understand them or sympathize with them, that makes me cheer for them. So quit being so lazy, please, Hollywood.
Or maybe I just need to be more discriminating, because I really should've known better to expect much of any of these movies. I don't know, though; plot holes or mediocre writing or overacting, I can overlook; at least give me characters I can care about, a little, one way or the other.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home