I had relatively high expectations when I found out Charlie Day was writing, directing and starring in what would be his first feature length work. I've been a long time fan of 'It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia' and I've found that, whenever he turns up in a movie, he's generally my favourite aspect of it. Which makes it somewhat dissapointing that 'Fools Paradise' is just kind of...fine.
The plot follows a man dubbed 'Latte Pronto' who has strong regressive tendancies. He's not medically mute, he just seemingly doesnt talk, and the doctors in the opening scene with him confirm that he has the mental capacity of a 5 year old (or a labrador). In the opening he's in a mental hospital, but because the government wont pay to assist in treating his condition, he's instead dumped out of the hospital and bussed into downtown LA, where he's almost immediately spotted by a Hollywood executive with a problem.
Y'see, he's currently working on a gritty remake of 'Billy the Kid' and the lead actor for the film is a method actor who's being a real pain in the ass, BUT by sheer chance, Latte and this actor look almost identical. So. The producer gets Latte to fill in, doing a few mute pieces to try and keep production rolling. Then the method actor accidentally hangs himself...Catapaulting Latte into the weird, wild and deeply sensual world of the hollywood management system. Teamed up with a desperate to break into the industry publicist 'Lenny' the pair will try and take on hollywood...with chaotic and explosive happenings.
Essentially this is trying to be a 'fish out of water' style film, a 'Keatonian'-esq quasi silent picture with elements of 'Broadway Danny Rose'. and what its trying to be is also kind of its problem.
The script has a pretty straightforward plotline running through it, but I feel like they struggled to really pick a lane as to whether they wanted this to be a screwball, more slapsticky (the keaton influence) piece, or whether they wanted to lead more with naturalistic comedy and contrasting pathos (see: Rose) As such, it ultimately ends up kind of falling between two chairs, with the more screwball-esq comedy feeling a little forced and toned down, when it needed to be ramped up. And the naturalistic comedy elements working a bit better than the screwball stuff, but still comes up a little bit short, with the pathos elements being given next to NO time to actually breath here.
As such, you end up with a film that'll mix pratfalls, with 'Big lebowski' inspired one liners, intercut with quite heartfelt moments that get less than a minute to rollout before they're trying to go zany or strange again...It really throws the film out of whack and makes it difficult to try and figure out exactly what Day is trying to put across with this thing. If the message is an attempt to showcase that Hollywood is full of crazy and strange people, even from the perspective of someone LITERALLY introduced to us as a 'crazy person'. then it kind of fails on two counts.
One being that 99.99% of the world ALREADY know that Hollywood is full of lunatics, I dont really feel like we needed reminding of this fact, and two being that the crazy people we're introduced to in this...just, arnt really THAT crazy?...I just feel like if your going to do something like this, you really need to push your cast to go to the next level, otherwise it just kind of feels like a self congratualtory acknowlegement of a flawed system...and this, while not FULLY in that camp, is swinging that way.
I also had issues with the pacing here, the second act drags a little whole we wait for the film to refind its feet after a relatively strong opening act, theres quite a bit of repetition in the 2nd and 3rd act of ideas (at one point I actually thought i'd acidentally jumped back a scene or two because they redo a crazy car chase/race sequence) the 3rd act does start to find its thread an build up steam, but the ending was a little underwhelming and while it had nice sentiment, I dont feel like it was a particualrly 'earned' ending, nor did it really fall in line with the tone of the rest of the movie...Nor was it particularly unique. Again, think the works of Woody Allan and your not a million miles off where this thing goes.
The characters outside of Latte and Larry are all purposefully vapid and shallow. Which is a fine enough gag, but the lack of variety in that vapidity harms the film and as a result it is a joke that wears quite thin, quite quickly. To the point that by the 3rd act, i'd pretty much forgot that it was supposed to *be* a gag...which is a problem if your film is trying to contrast light and dark.
I dont really have a whole lot to say on the direction and cine for this thing, its a very pretty to look at movie, but im not entirely convinced it was the right style of direction that a script like this could have thrived in. It looks a feels very clean, very clear, very smart. But we're constantly at an arms length from the characters, and the camera play is kept quite limited and only really played with in controlled short bursts. I feel like this is shot more int he vein of a light hearted drama, than a comedy or a more intimate picture (which it feels like its trying to be).
Composition is pretty, but uninspiring. sequences are cut together fine enough, but lack passion. It feels like a professional studio pic. Which is FINE...But films like this need a bit more behind the eyes than just a clean image and clear edit. it needs a layer of heart. Something deeper that helps the audience connect with the main character and their situation...and I didnt really feel that here. I didnt feel an emotional connection with any of these characters, or their world. I just felt like I was watching something trying to be a bit safe...and thats a problem for me.
Performance wise, Charlie Day is fine enough as 'Latte' Day has always been a great physical performer, and I feel like he really succeeds here in giving a lively facial performance and a solid physical one. I really do wish though that the cine had given him more close ups to really showcase that facial range, as he pulls some tremendous faces in this feature...non of which are captured particularly clearly.
Ken Jeong as Larry is great as a loud mouth publicist who shoots his mouth off first, and deals with the consiquences later. While I think he gives a really quite solid performance here, I wasnt totally won over by his chemestry with Day. they're a pairing for a decent chunk of the films runtime, but 90% of the film seems to just be Larry shouting at 'Latte' or offering him an energy drink...Which makes the turns in the 3rd act between the pairing all the more unebelievable. I feel had the script given the pair a couple of quieter moments to build a relationship, it would have made the 2nd half of the film much stronger. As it stands when the revelations between them DO come out in the 3rd act...all I could muster really was a shrug.
The rest of the casting choices are honestly unremarkable. It was nice to see some 'Always Sunny' Alumni cameo throughout, but on the whole I was just kind of 'meh' towards them. I cant say there was a bad performance here, but noone reallys stood out.
Mark Kermode used to set a rule with comedies. If they could make him laugh decently 3 times, they passed the test and were (at minimum) a 'good' comedy. I laughed openly with this film once...I cracked a few smirks/smiles...but a smirk/smile does not laughter make. 'Fools Paradise' is a somewhat gentle watch, which is in part its biggest problem. I feel had it leant just a bit more into a chaotic energy, and had it picked a lane in what it actually wanted to BE. It could have been a really REALLY solid picture. As it stands it comes across as indecisive. a little thin on the ground and overly dry. Im glad I checked it out...But I dont think I could really recommend it, and I cant see myself revisiting this one anytime soon.
source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/fools-paradise-2023/
No comments:
Post a Comment