« Early Friday Estimates - 10/29/05 | Main | Weekend Estimates - 10/30/05 »
October 30, 2005
Annie Dull
I don’t have a lot to say about Prime - which I just paid $9.50 to watch - so I’ll just lay it out quickly.
It took until about the halfway mark before I realized that this film was meant to be Ben Younger’s take on Woody Allen. Wacky relationship that seems doomed but is meant to be hopeful for the audience. Wacky side characters and flashbacks like granny hitting herself in the head with a frying pan. A touch of sex, usually wacky in some way.
Younger’s big contribution – and you can almost here the beer bottles being jostled and the long pulls on the cigarette while he was describing his vision in some terrible cool downtown space – is that the woman is older and the man is younger.
But here is the problem. Mr. Younger – and by extension, his character in the film - is as young and dumb as Allen was sharp and insightful. Not that he isn’t a very sharp guy. He must be very charming in a meeting. But he doesn’t have anything to say about anything. And with due respect to the cult of Boiler Room… more of the same from that effort.
It reminded me a lot of a freshman acting class. Everyone wants to do Chekov and Strindberg, but they don’t really understand. Moreover, the young actors are taught to develop a backstory and depth for their characters, so every moment feels emotionally grounded, even in a comedy… but few actually understand what that means.
Younger might have gotten away with it if it weren’t for the presence of Meryl Streep, who wins every scene she is in with ease… because she is really there… feeling something. Uma Thurman is trying to please the director… trying really hard. She has the tools, but she didn’t have a director who could help her get where she needed to be. And Bryan Greenberg must be incredibly charming in a room, because as a leading man, he manages to make Paul Walker look like a big personality. He’s a good looking kid… but nothing… nothing… nothing…
As a result, we never really know why in God’s name Uma Thurman is dying to “do things (she)’s never wanted to do before.”
We could. But Mr. Younger wants it both ways in every way. And it is amazing how stupid the movie can be about itself.
Here is a guy 14 years younger than the woman, but hey, he’s an artist… maybe she fell in love with the genius of his work. But she doesn’t see his work until she is fairly deep into the relationship.
Here is a woman who has just gotten divorced. That could well mean that she’s gone a year or more without sex. That could make her itchy. And the relationship with the hot young guy that really started as a fling could grow by surprise. But no, the movie suggests there is something deeper from the start and won’t suggest that Uma’s character is anxious to find a sexual partner.
There are advantages of having an inexperienced lover… they can be trained. This idea is passingly referred to, but there is no follow through… again, because Younger seems to be trying to save the young man from seeming like a shallow sex object.
But the thing is, while Bryan Greenberg is convincingly attractive, he is not good looking enough to be objectified. Typical of the movie is a beat where he draws the interest of a supermodel… an interest which must have some reason, whether it is that she is hot for him, interested in sleeping with someone who’s already taken or is attracted to the kindness she’s heard about in his relationship with Uma. Nope. None of the above. Nothing at all. Just another so-what plot point.
Why does Uma want to be with this man, who offers her nothing but a penis she wants to knit a hat for?
And why do we spend the first act seeing people shocked at the age difference when it seems like 4 or 5 years thanks to Ms. Thurman's genes. If Younger (and/or Universal) had the guts to cast a woman who actually looks close to 40 by conventional standards - say, Rene Russo - we might get it. But outside of dressing well, having frames for her paintings, and the ability to buy Merlot... they are effectively the same age. There is nothing wrong with a cultural mismatch, but a filmmaker needs to make a choice... unless they are brilliant... not here...
The whole thing is just so shallow and simple minded. Streep is brilliant. But even her character has almost nothing to do. And the closing montage is such an Allen steal - with none of the depth - that litigation would not be an unworthy idea.
This is really interesting turf… women over 30 dealing with life and love and sex and divorce and the ticking clock, etc… and so far, we have been stuck with Ben Younger and Roger Kumble covering it in studio films and covering it badly.
But the saddest part of all is that it is apparent that Younger simply doesn’t have the balls to follow through on anything… to tell any story… with passion. It’ll play ok on TV… it has moments that work… but they are all empty calories.
Posted by poland at October 30, 2005 01:28 AM
Comments
It's a bad sign that I remember seeing Boiler Room, but I don't remember anything that happened in it except fratboy i-bankers sitting around an unfurnished living room playing video games. Or was that college?
Posted by: jeffmcm ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 30, 2005 02:16 AM
Prime makes you appreciate the flawed but sexy P.S.
At least that movie had the balls to have a genuinely interesting sex scene, awkward, funny and sexy.
Posted by: HenryHill at October 30, 2005 04:02 AM
Well said, HenryHill. I didn't like PS, but it did seem to take more chances and I thought Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden (and Topher Grace) were better in that then this trio. I was embarassed for Meryl Streep after watching Prime.
BTW, David, I'm not sure, but I think Ben Younger's character was meant to be Bryan Greenberg's friend with the pies. Wasn't there a similar best friend in Boiler Room or am I misremembering?
All I could think of while watching Prime is what a night out with Cameron and Justin must be like. That's pretty sad, right?
Posted by: EDouglas at October 30, 2005 12:18 PM
If you saw Unscripted then you would agree with DP. Greenberg is not a leading man.
Posted by: PandaBear at October 30, 2005 08:45 PM
Prime just looks like a bad ABC movie. Just put in the older girl from the Gilmore Girls in the Uma role and some WB actor as the kid.
Posted by: Angelus21 at October 30, 2005 08:51 PM
I'll see anything with Streep in it. She is one of the best out there.
Posted by: LesterFreed at October 30, 2005 08:58 PM
What is with these directors trying to do Woody Allen? Be yourselves.
Posted by: Sanchez at October 30, 2005 09:45 PM
That's especially interesting since even Woody Allen has gotten tired of doing Woody Allen, check out the trailer for Match Point to see what I mean.
Posted by: jeffmcm at October 30, 2005 10:14 PM
Woody Allen now or 1979?
Posted by: Mark Ziegler at October 30, 2005 11:28 PM
By "I don’t have a lot to say about Prime," do you mean, "I don't have a lot to say about Prime if I were Ayn Rand?" Just kidding, David. With all this completely throwaway romantic comedy stuff that's been out lately, I'm starting to REALLY miss Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan movies. VERY weird feeling, let me tell you.
Posted by: Joe Straat at October 31, 2005 02:36 AM
I think Meg Ryan misses those too.
Posted by: BluStealer at October 31, 2005 05:10 AM
heheh, that's true (she probably also misses her original lips, but that's another story).
Man, Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, When Harry Met Sarry... that's how you make modern romantic comedies.
Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 at November 1, 2005 06:59 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)