Bit of a rorschach test; I saw winsome & wonderful, if quite familiar, inspirational tale. Most saw a schmaltzy bit of treacle. Both right.
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Hector and the Search for Happiness
Hector and the Search for Happiness is one more in a long line of films that probably will be missed by much of its intended audience due to the complete over-saturation of the market. The state of modern movie-going is so rich, providing more opportunities to get a film made than ever before. And that is of course wonderful. But it does almost inevitably bring with it the equal opportunity to be totally ignored in the face of so many other opportunities…
It certainly did nothing at the box office, although it’s anyone’s guess how much that matters at this point. I’d argue that this is the type of movie so destined to be watched at home that a theatrical release is probably more for the sake of appearances than any particular expectation of financial return.
All of my above points are from my perspective in the United States, of course. As this is a German production with a multi-national cast, this is probably a limited outlook. The whole picture screams “global audience” and so I hope it does better abroad.
Based on the French novel of the same name, (Le Voyage d’Hector ou la Recherche du bonheur) by François Lelord, Hector and the Search for Happiness follows the titular character, a rigid and emotionally constipated psychiatrist who has lost the joy in his work and life. He has a (perhaps excessively) doting girlfriend and a thriving practice, but he isn’t happy and fears that he is unable to help his patients become so either. So he sets out to broaden his horizons and seek out the secret to happiness in a globe-trotting experiment.
I’m a sucker for this kind of picture and even I couldn’t shake the feeling I’d already seen it. The film has many forbears, both in print and film. There’s undeniably a self-help book feel to the picture, and as I watched, not knowing anything about the production, I idly wondered whether it was based on one of those brightly colored thought treatises that seem to hang out on the bestseller lists every few months.
Just off the top of my head, the picture resembled Michael J. Fox’s book Always Looking Up and the TV special that accompanied it (Michael J. Fox: Adventures of an Incurable Optimist), as well as a bunch of feature films, particularly Stranger than Fiction and the recent version of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty. I also kept flashing back to Rob Reiner’s North, also an adaptation. Hector is uncomfortably similar to Ben Stiller’s take on Walter Mitty (which I also enjoyed).
The story differs from some of the works I named in that there is a real edge to the situations Hector experiences in his travels; he is in genuine danger and interacting with people in serious circumstances.
Simon Pegg is so charming he can anchor just about any film and everyone is better off for it. That doesn’t keep the main character and his emotional arc from being so so derivative, though.
The film makes some great use of imaginative visuals, inserting models, hand-drawn animation and antique-looking film stock. These flourishes aren’t as revolutionary as they once were, but they still are very effective and don’t come off as gimmicky (in this instance).
Despite the omnipresent deja vu, I liked Hector and the Search for Happiness. I freely admit that my enjoyment of the picture owes quite a bit to my favorable disposition to Simon Pegg and that with a different star I may have been far more critical. (Though maybe not – I really liked 2013’s The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, and I can’t stand Ben Stiller.) Provisionally recommended.
[schema type=”movie” url=”https://www.facebook.com/hectorandthesearchforhappiness” name=”Hector and the Search for Happiness” description=”A psychiatrist searches the globe to find the secret of happiness. Based on the novel Hector and the Search for Happiness (French: Le Voyage d’Hector ou la Recherche du bonheur), directed by Peter Chelsom, with Simon Pegg and Rosamund Pike starring.” director=”Peter Chelsom” actor_1=”Simon Pegg” ]
If you absolutely MUST watch a Hugh Grant rom-com – like your relationship and/or life depend on it – still skip this one…try About A Boy
Spoiler-free Movie Review of The Rewrite:
I watched this very predictable looking film for exactly one reason: it showed up on a list of newly released Blu-rays with a release year of 2015. I try to review recent films whenever possible, and since I don’t get to the movies as often as I’d like, at least for non-kids movies, I usually rely on stuff I can watch at home. This necessarily means that my reviews are always a bit late, even with the ridiculously short intervals between theatrical release and home video release.
So when I see something available to rent or stream with a recent date, particularly toward the beginning of the calendar year, I usually try to watch it. I completely realize how flawed this policy is, by the way. Pictures that are available for home video in the first quarter of the year they were released in are almost always dogs and often never got more than a token theatrical release.
The worst part about The Rewrite? The listing was wrong. The movie was released abroad in 2014. It never even got a theatrical release stateside. So that was the end of the one potentially redeeming feature of The Rewrite, that I’d get to add a 2015 review to the site.
But surely there was something worthwhile about the film? I mean, look at the cast: Hugh Grant, Marisa Tomei, J.K. Simmons, Allison Janney, Chris Elliot. These are good names and good actors. Yes, but they have something else in common; they aren’t terribly choosy. All have a long track record of dogs. My impression of these actors is that they are hardworking professionals who know that it’s a job and you need to keep swimming. I may be wrong, but that’s my take, and I’m not suggesting that there is anything in the world wrong with that outlook – it’s commendable. I’m merely suggesting that their presence in a film should never be taken as an indicator of the quality of the project by itself.
The Rewrite, which in all honesty should probably have been called The Remake, finds Hugh Grant playing screenwriter Keith Michaels, a Hollywood talent who had tremendous early success followed by a period of failure and is now burned out and cynical as he tries to rediscover the magic of his earlier career. It would be in poor taste to suggest that Hugh Grant is, therefore, playing Hugh Grant…
Ok, poor taste it is…
Actually, cheap shots aside, Grant is an actor I quite like in spite of his tendency to just keep playing himself, or rather, a version of the same character. Grant is probably not the character he is typecast as, any more than Lee Marvin or any other character actor. But he’s played the aloof, cynical, womanizing cad so often and so well that it sure feels like he is…
Out of work and luck, screenwriter Michaels takes the last available gig open to him: teaching screenwriting at respected Binghamton University in New York. Here he will meet cute with working mother Holly Carpenter (Marisa Tomei), fill his class with attractive co-eds, one of whom he’s shagging (Bella Heathcoate as Karen) and get another shot at success courtesy of one of his students (Clem, played by Stephen Kaplan from the funny Bart Got A Room).
The Rewrite is the vision of the talented Marc Lawrence, who after getting his start with the beloved 80’s sitcom Family Ties went on to carry the torch for 2000’s rom-coms, writing & directing three consecutive Sandra Bullock films. The Rewrite is his FOURTH consecutive Hugh Grant picture. Their first picture together was 2007’s Music and Lyrics, co-starring Drew Barrymore. The Rewrite is essentially the same movie as Music and Lyrics, enough so that it led me to wonder whether it is possible to plagiarize yourself…
The Rewrite is a lazy, unimaginative and derivative riff on the same theme that Grant has been playing for too long. J.K. Simmons has a nice little role that’s fun, and while the story is uninspired, Lawrence writes great dialogue and there are some nice little bits in there. It’s not awful or anything, just lightweight – perfectly fine for streaming.
[schema type=”movie” name=”The Rewrite” description=”An Oscar-winning writer in a slump leaves Hollywood to teach screenwriting at a college on the East Coast, where he falls for a single mom taking classes there.” director=”Marc Lawrence” actor_1=”Hugh Grant” ]
An Oscar-winning writer in a slump leaves Hollywood to teach screenwriting at a college on the East Coast, where he falls for a single mom taking classes there.
Let’s hear it for lowered expectations. After everyone, including my daughter, panned it, I couldn’t help but like this more than assumed…
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Annie:
Here’s the quick version: Annie is a completely unnecessary re-imagining of a story you’ve seen a dozen different times that contains little of the characteristics of the more enjoyable tellings. It messes with the formula with varied results and ends quite badly. Still…
Annie really isn’t as bad as you’ve heard. I’d even go as far as to say it’s got enough decent direction to become a good movie someday and is halfway there.
I attribute the majority of the bad reviews and reception to two main points:
“It never should have been made.” Some people are so weary of reboots and re-imaginings that it would never have gotten a fair shake. The analogue to this thought is the beloved status of the 1982 John Huston film version. It was never likely to touch that version and to many audiences was DOA for trying.
The film goes downhill and fast; despite a strong start and competent early going, the last half-hour is awful, leaving audiences exiting the theater with the feeling they saw a worse film then they actually did.
This factor worked to my personal benefit, as I expected nothing and couldn’t help but be pleased with a film that failed to be truly terrible.
Make no mistake, Annie is not a good film. It just doesn’t really work. But it is nowhere as poor as you’ve been told.
For starters, while I truly loathe the Hollywood project to remake every single earlier film, bear in mind that the seminal 1982 film was already an adaptation of a Broadway musical, itself an adaptation of an old comic serial. So let’s not pretend this 2014 remake was somehow the nadir of originality. And the original film version is hardly without warts.
The story certainly deserves an update, although I disagree that a modern setting is required for modern audiences. It was always a period piece. But if they can create modern-day versions of every other stage production, I don’t know if it’s for me to be critical of a desire to reset the tale in a new time. For the most part, the move to 2014 works.
I generally don’t take notes when watching a film for the first time, believing that I’m not devoting my full attention to the picture. I departed from form on this occasion simply because I fully expected the picture to stink. Shame on me for pre-judging. I’d like to point out, however, that the majority of my comments were positive and I ended up with a favorable review of the picture, so I feel that I made up for my initial read by being particularly attentive.
Love the rhythmic opening – signals that you’re in for a better movie than you’re likely to get.
Mixing in the tunes almost like an overture
The whole picture has good musical and rhythmic flourishes, which is entirely appropriate.
But auto-tune, ugh…
What on Earth is going on with this thing?
Miss Hannigan gets a backstory? She doesn’t need a backstory. Oh, she’s a failed star who was in a band before they broke? C&C Music Factory? Really? Who’s going to explain to 2014 youth who that is?
Despite my utter dislike of Beasts of the Southern Wild, I like young actress Quvenzhané Wallis – she’s charming and perfect for this role.
“Maybe” was and is the best song in the whole play. Thankfully they didn’t mess with it too much here.
Kid is cute enough, but she has no voice at all. She sings ok, but there’s absolutely no projection. Maybe it would be ok to have thin voices, but not since they have amped up all the backing music. I actually don’t mind the updating of the songs, honestly. But it just makes the singing seem even more amateurish by comparison.
When you make a film out of a Broadway show it should seem more epic, not less. There are only 5 kids and it’s a foster home, not an orphanage.
I like the action during “It’s A Hard Knock Life”.
I just don’t know why they feel like they need to hit every song with a backbeat, no matter how inappropriate – we get it – you’re hip.
Fantastic imagery during “Tomorrow” – she sees happy families everywhere, even when it’s just workers carrying supplies. Really imaginative and well executed.
I really like the narrative update, making the meet cute of Annie and the Daddy Warbucks character (reimagined as a mobile phone magnate named Will Stacks for some reason) a random event and providing a plausible reason for him to get involved in her life. Works better than the original story, actually…
So many extraneous characters…
“I Think I’m Going to Like it Here” – first song totally off-book – big mistake
Man, every Sony movie looks like a glossly, brightly-lit commercial. They could have spliced in scenes from The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and you’d never have noticed. I’m not sure they didn’t…
Cameron Diaz is so miscast. I can’t believe they let her sing…
Wow – they even rewrote the song (“Little Girls”) – not that I liked the original, but this whole updating of the character and backstory is so absurd. Ms. Hannigan doesn’t need a backstory…
Of course Jamie Foxx gets a song, which is fair enough, since he’s arguably the only person in the main cast who can sing. I don’t care for his singing, but he certainly knows how.
I know Daddy Warbucks had “NYC”, which was admittedly a pretty crap song, but this new New York tune is really dreadful.
Sandy the dog is cute…
How did they not have enough time to use all of the original showtunes, but enough time for a bunch of “originals”. Why would you adapt a massive hit and then play so loose with the source material? It would have been easier and cheaper to have just made this as an original film…
Why does there have to have to be an additional plot – she can’t read? That’s like the 10th plotline going on here…
Now Cannavale is going to try Easy Street? You’re out of your depth, son…wait, Diaz is back singing again – he looks and sounds better already…
Rooster is my favorite character in the whole story – and they cut him…
Diaz gets a second song? Or is this the third? C’mon folks, stop writing new songs…
Man, the wheels came off of this fast. I was mostly enjoying it, due the power of low expectations. But this is going downhill fast…
The last tune is like the first tune from the musical they’ve done in like a half an hour. Annnnndddd, they’re rewriting it, too…
Rose Byrne’s voice is a bit thin, too…
Umm, they forgot to kill off Annie’s parents. Hello? You’re giving up on your parents there, kid. Remember them, they’re your raison d’être? Every other version of the story made sure that it was known that her parents died some way or another so it wouldn’t be weird that she’s willing to be adopted after protesting for the entire story…
Mercifully, it’s run out of film before they got themselves into even more trouble.
How’d they go so wrong? Here’s a clue: there were eight producers of this film. Not executive producers – producers. Eight…
After re-reading those notes, I’m beginning to doubt my opening words about how poor this film wasn’t. See? You have to take time to reflect on the whole picture, not just how a film ends. Many good films have weak third acts. This isn’t a good film, but the theory still holds…
No, it’s not as good as the play. No, it’s not as good as the 1982 film. No, it’s not even as good as the 1999 made for tv film. But it does try some new things by updating the story, a few of which even work. Faint praise, maybe, but have you seen any of the other reviews? Trust me, I’m doing Annie a solid…
Academy Award® nominee Quvenzhané Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) stars as Annie, a young, happy foster kid who’s also tough enough to make her way on the streets of New York in 2014. Originally left by her parents as a baby with the promise that they’d be back for her someday, it’s been a hard knock life ever since with her mean foster mom Miss Hannigan (Cameron Diaz). But everything’s about to change when the hard-nosed tycoon and New York mayoral candidate Will Stacks (Jamie Foxx) – advised by his brilliant VP, Grace (Rose Byrne) and his shrewd and scheming campaign advisor, Guy (Bobby Cannavale) – makes a thinly-veiled campaign move and takes her in. Stacks believes he’s her guardian angel, but Annie’s self-assured nature and bright, sun-will-come-out-tomorrow outlook on life just might mean it’s the other way around.” director=”Will Gluck” producer=”Quvenzhané Wallis” ]
A foster kid, who lives with her mean foster mom, sees her life change when business tycoon and New York mayoral candidate Will Stacks makes a thinly-veiled campaign move and takes her in.
The Secret of Kells filmmaker Tomm Moore has created something even more beautiful & lovely for his 2nd film, if such a thing is possible…
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Song of the Sea:
Earlier this week, in my review of HOME, I wrote of how I despaired of the the state of animated children’s films – at least from the major studios. Today I get to point out how completely this concern does not apply to the more independent studios, such as Cartoon Saloon and its co-founder Tomm Moore, who directed The Secret of Kells and now, in his second picture, Song of the Sea.
I’m afraid that this review may prove to be a bit redundant after writing about The Secret of Kells, as the two films share many traits; gorgeous hand-drawn animation, uniquely Irish cultural hallmarks, astoundingly beautiful visuals, hauntingly gentle music, great stories full of human emotion, wonderful pacing, comfort with an understated feel devoid of the quick cuts and urgency that define modern film, Brendan Gleeson, Oscar nominations for Best Animated Feature (both were robbed of the statues), honor of being my daughter’s favorite films…
Where Song of the Sea differs in large part is in its modern setting. Although one of the nice things about the feel of the film is that modern in this context could mean any time in the past 100 years (or even the next 100). It’s completely free of any technology more time-sensitive than the automobile and portable camera, giving the picture a lasting appeal completely at home with the ethereal quality of its subject matter.
Ben (David Rawle) is a young boy who loses his mother Bronagh (Lisa Hannigan) to an unspecified complication during the birth of his sister Saoirse (Lucy O’Connell). His anger and resentment over his mother’s death keep him from remembering his promise to look after his now six-year old sister, who has yet to speak. But he will have to help her find her voice, as she is a selkie, capable of turning into a seal underwater, and one with an important mission.
When the children are moved from the island where Conor, their father (Brendan Gleeson) is the lighthouse-keeper and brought to live with their no-nonsense grandmother (Fionnula Flanagan) on Halloween, Ben must find a way to get his sister back to the sea where she belongs.
The grandmother character was the only red flag in the picture, as it seemed that it was going to be the old cliche of the stuffy old naysayer who crushes the hopes of the protagonists. The role sort of is just that, but it isn’t as stifling to the narrative as usual. Gleeson, on the other hand, once again gets a nice quiet role that plays to his gentle but stern strengths. I would whole-heartedly support the addition of Brendan Gleeson to every film made. I could listen to his voice all day and he has this disarming manner of being steely and kind, patient but resolved.
It’s so unfortunate that these movies don’t receive the audience they so richly deserve. With so many filler kids movies finding their way into multiplexes every year, it’s a pity (bordering on a crime) that the truly masterful films are so inaccessible. Song of the Sea probably was readily available in other areas of the world, but received only a minor theatrical release in the States. Even in a city like Boston, with an intellectually firm arts crowd and scores of students, these pictures are usually relegated to one of a couple of arthouses for short runs. And if the options are thin on the ground here, at least we have some. Move further away from a major city and the opportunities cease to exist. At least the state of modern film delivery methods through streaming, download and Blu-Ray somewhat level the playing field.
When I reviewed The Secret of Kells, I suggested it was one of the most original and beautiful films I had ever seen. Song of the Sea is even better. With apologies to Miyazaki-san, Song of the Sea may be the most beautiful animated film I’ve ever seen…
[schema type=”movie” url=”http://www.cartoonsaloon.ie/” name=”Song of the Sea” description=”From the creators of the Academy Award®-nominated “The Secret of Kells” comes a breathtakingly gorgeous, hand-drawn masterpiece. Based on the Irish legend of the Selkies, “Song of the Sea” tells the story of the last seal-child, Saoirse, and her brother Ben, who go on an epic journey to save the world of magic and discover the secrets of their past. Pursued by the owl witch, Macha, and a host of ancient and mystical creatures, Saoirse and Ben race against time to awaken Saoirse’s powers and keep the spirit world from disappearing forever. As enthralling for adults as for children young and old, “Song of the Sea” is a wonder of magical storytelling and visual splendor that is destined to become a classic.
“Song of the Sea” features the voices of Brendan Gleeson, Fionnula Flanagan, David Rawle, Lisa Hannigan, Pat Shortt and Jon Kenny. Music is by composer Bruno Coulais and Irish band Kíla, both of whom previously collaborated on “The Secret of Kells.”” director=”Tomm Moore” producer=”Cartoon Saloon” actor_1=”Brendan Gleeson” ]
Exactly what it looks like. Well-made: did good job of maintaining the spirit of the old cartoon, but instantly forgettable (like cartoon?).
Spoiler-free Movie Review of Mr. Peabody & Sherman:
I loved Rocky & Bullwinkle as a kid – still do – and the Mr. Peabody & Sherman cartoons were a big highlight. I love the awful puns, the understated humor, the delivery – it’s all great. So I viewed this DreamWorks Animation feature with trepidation. I assumed that it would be funny – I also assumed that it would be a completely paint-by-numbers “modern” cg-makeover that was obligated to create an unnecessary story with conflicts and character arcs. Sometimes it would be nice to be surprised…
There’s a scene in the underrated 1990 comedy Quick Change in which Bill Murray’s character, a jaded and burnt out city planner who has decided to become a bank robber, stares at the glass monstrosity of a new skyscraper going up and dejectedly laments, “Why do they have to do this?” I feel that way every time one of these movies based on increasingly questionable source material is announced. Every single thing created in our world does not need to be adapted to film. They’re making feature films based on board games at this point for goodness sake.
I’d have to say I liked Mr. Peabody & Sherman, since it would be untrue to say I disliked it. It was completely serviceable. With most reviews I’d make some comment that adequate is probably not what they were going for, but in this case I think it may have been. I’m becoming increasingly convinced that these cg-animated movies are aiming extremely low.
Sure, the jokes were pretty good and they brought over the sensibility of the cartoon exactly. But then they built it up with the usual DreamWorks Animation crap – you know, the too cool for school pop culture references that you aren’t really sure what audience they’re targeted to. I hate that crap. It shows a complete lack of respect for the audience.
I came to this conclusion when I asked the rhetorical question “how do they think this stuff will play in a few years’ time?” That’s when I realized they simply are not concerned with that. They are making a movie for right now – there isn’t a thought given to the shelf life of the movie. That shows not just shortsightedness, but also implies a disdain for the work itself. You can’t spend this much money and time on something and not care about its legacy unless you really don’t feel that it has any value to begin with. (Although, based on the disappointing box office receipts that caused the studio to take a $57 million write-down on it and nearly single-handedly tanked the stock and made the company vulnerable to takeover bids, maybe they were right…)
So yes, I submit that the filmmakers and this studio in particular have no respect for the work they are creating and are just making widgets. Well, mission accomplished. See ya soon for the Connect Four movie…
By the way, this film has inspired me to create a new section on the site, #140FAQ, where I post my Frequently Asked Questions (mine, not yours) in 140 characters. Here’s the first:
#140FAQ Is there some sort of rule that all cg-animated movies must have a “funny” end scene of characters dancing to pop song? #BlameShrek
Poster:
Trailer:
Bechdel Test:
Fail
The Representation Test Score: I dunno, hard to do for these movies; call it a C (4 pts)
