Reviewer's curse? I just wrote a Hugh Grant film review in which I said Hugh Grant comes across so natural in his performances that it doesn't even seem like he's acting. What I was also saying, as a compliment, is that I love watching films that feel real -- like I'm just there observing life, and not a film.
Now, it's a rare film that cloaks itself into invisibility. Obviously when you watch a film, most of the time you're aware that you're watching a film. And sometimes that's an enjoyable experience. I like watching Wes Anderson and Quentin Taratino films for just that reason.
But Mickey Blue Eyes: You are always aware that you're watching a film. And I then I try to figure out what type of film. Is this a romantic comedy, like so many Hugh Grant films are? Is it a mob spoof? I've mentioned this before, too, but when films try to check off a lot of genre boxes, that can be cool, but it can also lead to a mess.
Unfortunately, this film might tilt toward the "mess" side of the spectrum. Roger Ebert suggested that Grant was simply miscast. That's not my problem with this film. When Frank (James Caan) tries to teach Michael (Grant) how to speak "Italian mobster," Grant's literal inability to hide his posh British accent and sound "mobster" is hilarious. It's maybe the funniest part of the film for me.
Meanwhile, my mind wanders at other details. Michael and Gina (Jeanne Tripplehorn) haven't been dating for even two months. Even so, is it believable that Gina has been able to hide the fact that she's a mob family daughter? Frank and the boys haven't bothered to visit Michael at the art gallery? Not once in that two-month period?
And maybe this just my mind continuing to wander, but Michael and Gina are two characters in their late 30s. Have they really never fallen in love before, or at least had serious long-term relationships? We're led to believe that these two attractive people were socially and sexually dormant for all of their adult life. I guess most films have character developments issues like this: We often just don't know anything about a character prior to the film -- as if they never "existed" until the film began.
Gina may be a mob family daughter, but somehow, she's never been infected by it? She worries about Michael doing "little favors" for the family, but why has she never had to?
I have to admit, when Gina accidently shoots Johnny (John Ventimiglia), I was surprised the plot went in that direction. Johnny is a completely unlikable character, and so I guess we've been primed not to care if he lives or dies, and whatever happens to him is just a plot device to see if Michael and Gina can get passed it.
I guess they do get passed it, but with the FBI involved, are they simply going to ignore what happened to Johnny? Granted, they're more interested in bringing Johnny's dad to justice, but it's one of those little details: law enforcement never pursues justice for Johnny.
Kind of weird, too, that technically, if not literally, Gina and Michael had a wedding. They said their vows and kissed. They sealed the deal, man. And yet, that wedding was all for show? Do Gina and Michael actually have to go through the entire wedding ceremony again? And are we to believe that one little FBI arrest is going to give Gina and Michael immunity from feature mob revenge actions?
Yes, I know I'm probably taking this movie too seriously. But I can't help it. I can't look passed the writing, and I can't look passed the fact that I never forget that every character is just a character playing a part.
Review: 2/5 stars
Comments
Post a Comment