Movie Curiosities: Tusk
September 24, 2014 in Curiosity Inc., Uncategorized
I think it would be fair to call Kevin Smith a controversial figure among movie fans. On the one hand, Smith helped define modern independent cinema by way of Clerks back in the ’90s. Mallrats and Chasing Amy have both kept impressive followings as well, and I personally hold Dogma in high regard as a movie that helped shape my feelings about religion and spirituality. Of course, those examples are among Kevin Smith’s earlier work. More recently, his output has been stuff like Jersey Girl, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Cop Out, and Red State, all of which (to put it charitably) failed to find a passionate audience. Read the rest of this entry →
Movie Curiosities: This Is Where I Leave You
September 22, 2014 in Curiosity Inc.
There are movies that I see because they look and sound amazing. There are movies that I avoid because they have no chance of being good. And then there are the critically panned movies that I see because I want to know how the hell they could have gone so badly. This is one of those last ones.
This Is Where I Leave You stars Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Corey Stall, Adam Driver, Jane Fonda, Kathryn Hahn, Rose Byrne, and a ton of other rock-solid talents. On the other hand, the film was directed by Shawn Levy, he of Real Steel, the Night at the Museum franchise, the Steve Martin Pink Panther reboot, and The Internship. The guy’s a complete mediocrity, but it’s not like this is just another time when he’s acting as a studio shill to make some soulless PG-13 cash-in. He’s making an R-rated family dramatic comedy with a stellar cast. At the very least, it should be interesting.
But it isn’t. At all.
The premise concerns Mort Altman, who dies sometime during the opening credits. For his dying wish, Mort requested that his family reunites to observe Shiva. For those who aren’t aware, Shiva is a Jewish tradition of mourning, in which the immediate family members of the deceased stay at home for seven days and nights while entertaining visitors who’ve come to pay respects. This despite the fact that Mort was only born Jewish and was an outspoken atheist right up until he died. Why the sudden change of heart? Great question. Let’s move on to the family.
Our de facto protagonist is Judd Altman, played by Jason Bateman. He’s the relatively stable middle child of the bunch (because that doesn’t sound the least bit familiar) and the news of his father’s death came at a particularly bad time for him. See, it was only a few months ago when Judd caught his wife (Quinn, played by Abigail Spencer) cheating on him with his boss. Who’s a Dax Shepard character. And this happened on her birthday. Yeah, that stings.
Judd’s older sister and closest confidante is Wendy Altman, played by Tina Fey. She’s married to Barry (Aaron Lazar), a workaholic who doesn’t seem to know that a world exists outside his cell phone, and they’re raising two kids together. Also, one of these kids is potty training, and the film has a running gag about how the kid will set his little plastic toilet down and do his business just about anywhere. The joke is precisely as awkward and unfunny as you’d think.
Oh, and Wendy also has to deal with her residual feelings for Horry (an unrecognizable Timothy Olyphant), who had a very serious love affair with Wendy at some time in the past. Horry is still living across the street from the Altmans’ house and helping to run Mort’s old sports equipment store, since a brain injury has left him pretty much incapable of relocating anywhere. Also, Horry’s mother (Linda, played by Debra Monk), has been helping the family along while Mort was on his deathbed.
Getting back to the family, the firstborn is Paul Altman (Corey Stoll), who seems so perpetually uptight that he always seems to be right on the verge of having a stroke. It doesn’t help that his wife (Alice, played by Kathryn Hahn) is hysterically desperate to have a child, and the two have been trying to conceive for years to no avail. Oh, and Alice started dating Paul right after she stopped dating Judd, so Paul has a bit of residual jealousy there as well.
(Side note: It bears remembering that Hahn and Bateman recently played love interests in Bad Words, which Bateman also directed. That history adds a neat layer to their subplot here, especially if you remember their sex scenes together in the previous film.)
To round out the siblings, we have youngest brother Phillip, played by Adam Driver. He’s your typical irresponsible fuckup who loves making trouble and can’t seem to hold down a job. Also, he’s “engaged to be engaged” with Tracy (Connie Britton) a much older woman who appears to be quite wealthy and used to be Phillip’s therapist.
Then we have the matriarch, Hillary Altman, played by Jane Fonda. She’s just gone through another round of plastic surgery (which is made into a running gag because boobs are funny, right?) because she’s about to go on another book tour. See, this year marks the 25th anniversary of “Cradle And All,” a book that Hillary wrote, based on her adventures in raising these four children. The book went on to be a highly influential bestselling smash, to the infinite public humiliation of Hillary’s kids.
Outside of the family, we’ve got two supporting characters worth mentioning. One of them is Charles Grodner (Ben Schwartz), an old childhood friend of the Altman siblings, who’s now the rabbi making sure that Jewish traditions are being upheld as per Mort’s dying wish. Also, the rabbi’s childhood nickname was “Boner” (are you seeing a trend with the running gags yet?). Last but not least is Penny (Rose Byrne) a somewhat ditzy girl who used to have a crush on Judd back when she was too young to do anything about it.
At this point, I’d like to revisit my original question: How could a movie with this much talent fuck up so badly? Looking back at the synopsis I just typed, I’m sure you can spot some clues.
To be clear, none of the blame rests on the cast. The actors all do a fine job of wrenching laughs and tears out of moments that were otherwise completely inert. Also, as much as I’d love to blame the director, Shawn Levy isn’t really at fault here either. Though his skills with camerawork and editing are hopelessly pedestrian, and it’s tempting to think that a stronger director would have done a better job at juggling the plotlines, I don’t think he’s the problem. He certainly didn’t help matters, but he’s not the problem. No, the problem is Jonathan Tropper, here adapting his own book into the screenplay. Even with zero knowledge of the book, I’m confident that this is what it looks like when an author tries to adapt his own work into a different medium and can’t bear to cut anything out.
There are simply too many plotlines for a 103-minute movie to handle, and this damages the film in countless ways. There isn’t enough time to properly develop setups and payoffs, which means that a lot of jokes and plot twists don’t land nearly as effectively as they should. Also, most of the characters are pitifully two-dimensional because there’s so little time to develop them. There are exceptions, however: Horry deals with his head injury in poignant and comical ways, Quinn appears to be sincerely heartbroken over the decision to cheat on her husband, and Dax Shepard’s character is remarkably honest about how much of a shitheel he is. Everyone else, however, seems to act like a cardboard cutout, swaying in whatever direction the plot is going. In an intimate character drama like this one, that lack of authentic characters is a fatal error.
And of course the themes all come off as half-baked. The story desperately wants to talk about family, death, marriage, fidelity, childbirth, being with loved ones, being alone, and a wide variety of other loosely-related topics. The potential messages are so far over the map that ultimately, the film never really says much of anything. Basically, it tries to be a movie about the random and senseless nature of life, but it falls into the trap of being a random and senseless movie in the process of making that statement.
On a similar note, it’s a movie filled with awkward and painful conversations between characters who hate each other, and it’s really difficult to present scenes like that in a way that isn’t just as awkward and painful for the audience. The filmmakers of course try to mine some comedy out of these arguments, but the results are hit-and-miss. When these attempts fail, they land flat on the floor with a sickening thud. But even when they succeed and get some laughs… well, I honestly hated myself for laughing. Maybe it’s just me, but it felt mean-spirited to laugh as these people tore each other to shreds. More to the point, it further damages the film’s attempts at presenting a family of likeable and authentic characters. You can’t sympathize with people who turn each other into punching bags for our amusement. It just doesn’t work that way. Though it works a lot better here than in August: Osage County, I’ll grant the film that much.
Oh, and did I mention that so much of the humor is painfully juvenile? Yeah, that doesn’t exactly help matters.
This Is Where I Leave You is a mess. It has some moments that are genuinely funny (“You’re sitting where we put our Christmas tree!”) and other moments with honest dramatic weight, but those high points are buried under way too much chaotic bullshit. The film is so unwieldy — overcrowded with too many characters, plotlines, and themes — that even the good moments are too disjointed to add up to anything. It counts for a lot that the cast is amazing and the actors are giving their all, but the writing and direction just aren’t up to par.
The movie isn’t boring or irritating, it’s just unremarkable. It tries to do so many things at once that it fails to do anything particularly well and doesn’t leave any kind of an impact. That wouldn’t be anything to get upset over, except for all the incredibly talented people who helped make this picture. These actors deserve better, and so do we.
For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter.
Movie Curiosities: The Drop
September 15, 2014 in Curiosity Inc.
I think it’s fair to say that the past few weeks have not been kind to movie lovers, particularly those who aren’t in the arthouse loop. Since Guardians of the Galaxy, the wide releases have gone from bad (Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, Expendables 3) to worse (Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Let’s Be Cops). Leaving aside the summer blockbuster afterbirths, we’ve got dud attempts at serious drama (When the Game Stands Tall, If I Stay) and stuff that makes me wonder why the fuck it was ever made at all (The Identical, Dolphin Tale 2, Atlas Shrugged: Part 3).
I see some potential relief next month, since this year’s batch of October horror releases has some promising entries (Dracula Untold and The Book of Life among them), but the rest of this month looks just plain weird. I have no idea what to make of The Equalizer or The Maze Runner, much less why they’re being released in close proximity to Rosewater and The Good Lie. Oh, and this will also be the month of Tusk, a Kevin Smith movie about a mad scientist who turns an unwilling subject into a walrus. Again, what the fuck?
Don’t get me wrong, the time between blockbuster summer and awards winter is always an awkward one (I fondly think of it as “Craptember”), but this year’s window is so painful and confusing. Lucky we’ve got at least one good movie to come of it.
The Drop opens with a bit of expository voice-over, talking about the New York underworld. Dirty cash is constantly trading hands, you see, and all of that money has to go somewhere. To this end, the mob bosses have taken ownership of several bars throughout the city. Every day, one of these bars is chosen at random to be a drop site, where filthy lucre can be safely deposited until it’s picked up the next day.
Our protagonist is Bob Saginowski (Tom Hardy), who works at one of these mob-owned bars, though he makes a clear point of keeping any criminal business at arm’s length. Incidentally, the bar is managed by his Cousin Marv (the late, great James Gandolfini in his last film role), who’s in the process of leaving his shady past behind. Our third lead turns up when Bob finds a pit bull puppy beaten and bloodied in someone’s garbage can. The can belongs to Nadia (Noomi Rapace), who used to be a veterinary tech. Think that’s a coincidence? Of course you don’t.
That last point should give you an idea of how this movie operates. There are many other examples I could name. There’s the detective (John Ortiz) snooping around, asking about a guy who went missing a decade ago. There’s the mysterious creep (Matthias Schoenaertes) who keeps popping up in a suspicious way, claiming to be the owner of the puppy. There are the two guys who rob Cousin Marv’s bar, rehearsing for the night when that bar gets to be the drop site. That isn’t even getting started on what Marv and his mob bosses have planned for when that drop day inevitably comes.
The movie presents us with so many different plotlines, hoping all the while that we’ll be invested enough to see how they pay off. That’s a very tricky gambit, one that could backfire horribly with the slightest misstep. And there are so many reasons why it works here.
First of all, this screenplay was written by Dennis Lehane, here making his feature screenwriting debut by adapting one of his short stories. If the name sounds familiar, he’s the guy who wrote the books that Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone, and Shutter Island were all based on. Lehane has also written a few episodes for The Wire and Boardwalk Empire. That CV should speak for itself. If anyone knows how to write a superbly taut thriller that can maintain suspense for 100 minutes’ runtime, it’s this guy.
Secondly, there’s the director. Michael Roskam is a relative unknown, largely because this is only his second feature. Though his debut feature was Bullhead in 2011, which earned overwhelming critical praise and a Best Foreign Language Film nomination. I’m sorry to say that I missed out on Bullhead, but his work here is proof enough that Roskam is no one-hit wonder. Between the solid soundtrack and the pitch-perfect editing, Roskam shows a superlative ability to keep the audience waiting for the next surprise (though it helps that he was working with such skilled masters as composer Marco Beltrami and editor Christopher Tellefsen). Granted, the camerawork is a little iffy in places — in particular, the climax has multiple shots in which the camera pans 180 degrees until it’s upside down — but it’s generally effective nonetheless.
Then we have the cast. It’s like every single actor (with one unfortunate exception) in this movie was chosen for their ability to convey homicidal insanity behind a very thin facade of calm. Tom Hardy is a great example. On the one hand, he does genuinely look and act like a well-meaning guy who isn’t very smart or violent. The guy saves a puppy in the first ten minutes, for God’s sake. On the other hand, we all know it’s only a matter of time before our protagonist breaks out some hidden can of whoopass. After all, this is Tom Hardy. No matter what movie he’s in or who he’s playing, you do not fuck with Tom Hardy. Period.
The same could be said of James Gandolfini. The guy could look and act like a big teddy bear, but you could never forget that he was Tony Fucking Soprano. Gandolfini was remarkable for his ability to be soft and paternal, then turn on a dime to act cold and bloodthirsty. It’s especially painful in this context, when we see this old and grey character reminiscing about the days when he was a bona fide gangster. It’s a heartwrenching reminder of what we lost when he died, and a very poignant epitaph for the man himself.
And Noomi Rapace? Come on. We’re talking about Lisbeth Salander here. With the notable exception of Prometheus, Rapace has built her career playing damaged women of exceptional intelligence who could turn seven shades of badass without warning. This is really just a continuation of what Rapace has already done with the Millennium trilogy and (blech) Dead Man Down.
Kudos are also due to Michael Aronov, who appears threatening in such a way that you can never tell if the character is serious or just messing with people. There’s a lot of good suspense from that. We also have Matthias Schoenaertes (previously the lead of the aforementioned Bullhead), who personifies the concept of homicidal psychosis under an eerie calm. Unfortunately, the cast does have a weak link in John Ortiz, who leaves a far less potent impression than his castmates do. Despite all the effort that Ortiz is clearly putting in, I could never quite believe that he was much of any serious threat to the other characters. He’s enough to get the job done, don’t get me wrong, but there was definitely room for a stronger casting choice.
Getting back to the screenplay, I must admit that the plot is masterfully structured. The suspense all hinges on the promise of a massive payoff, and there’s no denying that the myriad plotlines all dovetail beautifully with some extraordinary twists throughout. Alas, the movie is nowhere near as compelling in terms of theme. There are a few messages in there about the unpredictable, dishonest, and irrational tendencies of criminals, as well as some ruminations about isolation and past sins. Unfortunately, while these statements lead to some inspired plot points, the statements themselves are only half-baked retreads of themes we already know from umpteen other crime dramas.
All told, The Drop works as a wonderfully suspenseful crime drama. Even if the movie doesn’t do anything new in terms of theme, the plot is so intricately built and deliberately paced that it’s very satisfying to watch the narrative unfold. The cast — the lead actors in particular — are just going through the motions of what we’ve already seen them do, but the characters are so interesting and portrayed with such talent that it’s still amazing to watch.
I can’t see this film being a serious awards contender (except maybe for Adapted Screenplay), but it’s a worthy palate cleanser between the summer films and the awards season. Definitely give it a watch.
For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter.
Movie Curiosities: What If
August 24, 2014 in Curiosity Inc.
And the hits just keep on coming. Things are so bad right now that Guardians of the Galaxy could potentially reclaim the number one spot this weekend because nothing worthwhile has come out since that film’s release. I had some measure of hope that If I Stay or When the Game Stands Tall might have turned out to be pleasant surprises, but the reviews are in and they’re crap.
Lucky I’ve been keeping something in reserve for such an occasion.
What If tells the story of two star-crossed lovers in Toronto, Canada. We first meet Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) a year after his girlfriend cheated on him and he’s only just now getting over the heartbreak. He goes to a party being held by his old college roommate (Allan, played by Adam Driver), who introduces Wallace to his cousin. Chantry (Zoe Kazan) strikes up a conversation with Wallace and they get along famously… right up until Chantry mentions her boyfriend. In this case, she’s been going out with Ben (Rafe Spall) for the past five years, and he seems like a perfectly nice guy with a fantastic future to share with his beloved Chantry.
Every guy has been there. In fact, it’s pretty much the story of my whole love life. But I digress.
On one level, the movie is about that timeless question of whether or not two people of opposite genders can just be friends. And yes, this movie does tread a lot of ground that will sound familiar to anyone who’s seen When Harry Met Sally. Then again, this film will be compared to When Harry Met Sally anyway, because it’s a romantic comedy and When Harry Met Sally is pretty much the modern romcom by which all others are measured. And anyway, Harry and Sally were both single through the bulk of their movie’s runtime. This one features a steady relationship to complicate things. Which brings me to another of this film’s layers.
Perhaps more than anything else, the movie is about choice. All throughout the running time, the characters have to choose between what they have now and something else that might potentially be better. They have to choose between having a relationship and having a career. Between staying home or starting fresh somewhere else. The characters have to sort through a wide variety of possible routes and plot curveballs, which keeps the tension going and saves the plot from that common romcom trap of being predictable.
The characters and their development arcs are a huge part of what makes this movie work so well. The foremost examples are of course Wallace and Chantry, both of whom have scorching chemistry from start to finish. Between their delightful banter and the soulful performances of Radcliffe and Kazan, these characters do a fantastic job powering the film. Of course, it also helps that Wallace and Chantry both feel like fleshed-out characters with their own backstories and dreams. And the occasional sweetly awkward moment does wonders as well.
Then we have Allan and Nicole (Mackenzie Davis). These two drunkenly meet each other at the start of the film, and we get to watch every step of their crazy whirlwind romance. On paper, it seems like Allan and Nicole have the kind of horny ill-planned relationship that can only end in disaster. Quickly. Yet as time goes on, the film questions whether they know something that nobody else does. If nothing else, their relationship is actually going someplace, as opposed to the Wallace/Chantry romance that’s stuck in a very awkward neutral gear. It becomes an intriguing question regarding what these two characters have and whether they can make it last.
Of course, not all the characters work. Funny enough, the two most prominent cases in point are the sisters of the two main leads. Wallace’s sister (Ellie, played by Jemima Rooper) is only around for a couple of comic relief scenes and otherwise serves no purpose. As for Chantry’s sister… whoo boy. I get what the filmmakers were going for with Dalia (Megan Park), but the character ends up being even more loose and capricious than Nicole. She’s so far over the place that I couldn’t get an adequate hold on her, so she ends up looking like more of a device to do whatever the plot needs at any given time.
Pretty much all of the other secondary characters are basically red herrings. Yet that actually works in this case, because every one of them represents another path for the plot to potentially go down, and watching the characters struggle with their options is the whole point of the story.
But then we also have Ben. Kudos to Rafe Spall for making a solid impression with so little screen time. Of course, when a character’s introduction involves getting pushed out of a window, that’s going to make a very strong impression no matter who’s playing him.
This brings me to the film’s tone. The movie includes several whimsical touches that land with mixed results. Between the animated vignettes, the random cutaways, the pop culture references, and other pop-up sight gags, it seems like the filmmakers were trying to make a movie just this side of quirky. Sometimes it works, other times it feels like they were trying way too hard.
But by far my biggest problem is the ending. Specifically, the film should have ended five minutes sooner. Here’s the thing: This is a movie about the complexities of love. It’s about all the various conflicts between competing emotions, multiplied by modern customs of courtship and standards of success. Hell, the title of the film is “What if?” and every single part of the narrative revolves around that question. This is a story that needed to end on an ambiguous note, and there’s one point when the film is primed to do just that. Instead, we get an epilogue that neatly resolves everything. Bad move, in my opinion.
(Side note: This movie was originally titled The “F” Word, but the title was changed after censors were afraid that not enough people would realize the double entendre. I frankly prefer the revised title.)
Yet even with my misgivings about the ending, What If was a delight. The film is a romcom that succeeds at being romantic and comical, in large part due to the strength of the dialogue and the cast. Hell, the interplay between Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan is easily worth the ticket price.
Though the movie can get a little too saccharine on occasion and not every character is a winner, I have absolutely no problem recommending it. And anyway, it’s not like there’s anything else in the multiplexes right now.
For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter and Mastodon.
Movie Curiosities: What If
August 24, 2014 in Curiosity Inc., Uncategorized
And the hits just keep on coming. Things are so bad right now that Guardians of the Galaxy could potentially reclaim the number one spot this weekend because nothing worthwhile has come out since that film’s release. I had some measure of hope that If I Stay or When the Game Stands Tall might have turned out to be pleasant surprises, but the reviews are in and they’re crap.
Lucky I’ve been keeping something in reserve for such an occasion.
What If tells the story of two star-crossed lovers in Toronto, Canada. We first meet Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) a year after his girlfriend cheated on him and he’s only just now getting over the heartbreak. He goes to a party being held by his old college roommate (Allan, played by Adam Driver), who introduces Wallace to his cousin. Chantry (Zoe Kazan) strikes up a conversation with Wallace and they get along famously… right up until Chantry mentions her boyfriend. In this case, she’s been going out with Ben (Rafe Spall) for the past five years, and he seems like a perfectly nice guy with a fantastic future to share with his beloved Chantry.
Every guy has been there. In fact, it’s pretty much the story of my whole love life. But I digress.
On one level, the movie is about that timeless question of whether or not two people of opposite genders can just be friends. And yes, this movie does tread a lot of ground that will sound familiar to anyone who’s seen When Harry Met Sally. Then again, this film will be compared to When Harry Met Sally anyway, because it’s a romantic comedy and When Harry Met Sally is pretty much the modern romcom by which all others are measured. And anyway, Harry and Sally were both single through the bulk of their movie’s runtime. This one features a steady relationship to complicate things. Which brings me to another of this film’s layers.
Perhaps more than anything else, the movie is about choice. All throughout the running time, the characters have to choose between what they have now and something else that might potentially be better. They have to choose between having a relationship and having a career. Between staying home or starting fresh somewhere else. The characters have to sort through a wide variety of possible routes and plot curveballs, which keeps the tension going and saves the plot from that common romcom trap of being predictable.
The characters and their development arcs are a huge part of what makes this movie work so well. The foremost examples are of course Wallace and Chantry, both of whom have scorching chemistry from start to finish. Between their delightful banter and the soulful performances of Radcliffe and Kazan, these characters do a fantastic job powering the film. Of course, it also helps that Wallace and Chantry both feel like fleshed-out characters with their own backstories and dreams. And the occasional sweetly awkward moment does wonders as well.
Then we have Allan and Nicole (Mackenzie Davis). These two drunkenly meet each other at the start of the film, and we get to watch every step of their crazy whirlwind romance. On paper, it seems like Allan and Nicole have the kind of horny ill-planned relationship that can only end in disaster. Quickly. Yet as time goes on, the film questions whether they know something that nobody else does. If nothing else, their relationship is actually going someplace, as opposed to the Wallace/Chantry romance that’s stuck in a very awkward neutral gear. It becomes an intriguing question regarding what these two characters have and whether they can make it last.
Of course, not all the characters work. Funny enough, the two most prominent cases in point are the sisters of the two main leads. Wallace’s sister (Ellie, played by Jemima Rooper) is only around for a couple of comic relief scenes and otherwise serves no purpose. As for Chantry’s sister… whoo boy. I get what the filmmakers were going for with Dalia (Megan Park), but the character ends up being even more loose and capricious than Nicole. She’s so far over the place that I couldn’t get an adequate hold on her, so she ends up looking like more of a device to do whatever the plot needs at any given time.
Pretty much all of the other secondary characters are basically red herrings. Yet that actually works in this case, because every one of them represents another path for the plot to potentially go down, and watching the characters struggle with their options is the whole point of the story.
But then we also have Ben. Kudos to Rafe Spall for making a solid impression with so little screen time. Of course, when a character’s introduction involves getting pushed out of a window, that’s going to make a very strong impression no matter who’s playing him.
This brings me to the film’s tone. The movie includes several whimsical touches that land with mixed results. Between the animated vignettes, the random cutaways, the pop culture references, and other pop-up sight gags, it seems like the filmmakers were trying to make a movie just this side of quirky. Sometimes it works, other times it feels like they were trying way too hard.
But by far my biggest problem is the ending. Specifically, the film should have ended five minutes sooner. Here’s the thing: This is a movie about the complexities of love. It’s about all the various conflicts between competing emotions, multiplied by modern customs of courtship and standards of success. Hell, the title of the film is “What if?” and every single part of the narrative revolves around that question. This is a story that needed to end on an ambiguous note, and there’s one point when the film is primed to do just that. Instead, we get an epilogue that neatly resolves everything. Bad move, in my opinion.
(Side note: This movie was originally titled The “F” Word, but the title was changed after censors were afraid that not enough people would realize the double entendre. I frankly prefer the revised title.)
Yet even with my misgivings about the ending, What If was a delight. The film is a romcom that succeeds at being romantic and comical, in large part due to the strength of the dialogue and the cast. Hell, the interplay between Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan is easily worth the ticket price.
Though the movie can get a little too saccharine on occasion and not every character is a winner, I have absolutely no problem recommending it. And anyway, it’s not like there’s anything else in the multiplexes right now.
—
For more Movie Curiosities, check out my blog. I’m also on Facebook and Twitter.
