by Dane Youssef
It's astonishing that Schwimmer turned down the lead in "Men In Black" (the Will Smith role) for this. He might have been the one to have a lasting career after "Friends." Or at least appear in something good.
No such luck.
"Since You've Been Gone" is yet another movie that showcases the 10th Anniversary High School Reunion. Wow, how many movies are they make around those? Not merely reunions, I mean, everyone deals with those at some point.
But the 10 year post mark is usually when reunion time comes rolling around.
I'm not sure to begin saying everything that's wrong with this movie. Many already have. Many have condensed the problems into a blurb or a couple of sentences. The critic on Epinions.com wrote: "Cons: Bad Acting, Half-Baked Development of Characters, Lack of Direction and Focus in Storyline." But I disagree.
What about the gaping lack of humor, energy and insight?
Still, I guess that's too much for a nutshell.
Aside from Jeff Steinberg's rough-draft script, David Schwimmer's directing is also a chief flaw. And I am about to explain why:
Whenever actors try to direct, there's always a danger that this Thespian-turned-helmer could try to turn the movie, show or whatever into just a bunch of filmed performances.
This director will just focus entirely on performances and skim or completely omit just about everything else.
You know what I mean. Ever notice whenever an actor makes his directorial debut, he has a tendency to turn it into pretty much just a taped collage of actors acting?
Kinda like a portfolio or a resume' on tape? Think about EVERY movie directed by an actor you've ever seen? We're just observing some people act, not a real movie.
But to be fair, that's not ALWAYS how it turns out when an actor directs: ("Braveheart," "Unforgiven," "Zoolander," "Sling Blade," "Now You Know" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind").
And whenever SCREENWRITERS get behind the camera, many have a tendency to just focus on the actors delivery of their dialog and little plot points, twists and morals.
But enough of that crap. Jeez, I'm supposed to be reviewing a movie, not writing a handbook on a director's workshop.
David Schwimmer's other directorial credits include numerous episodes of "Friends," so it's understandable why he kinda cocks up here.
The camera is mostly on auto-pilot. The whole movie is like a boring workplace party with elevator muzak playing. The actors (all from Schwimmer's Lookingglass Theatre Company) all come together and recite easy sit-com one-liners and sit-com situations with sit-com payoffs.
Once again, this COULD be funny and worth-watching. But it's all done with an absolute minimum of energy.
The most Schwimmer DOES bring to the movie is his character Robert S. Levitt, an obnoxious dick who was all the rage in high school, getting apparently popular by pissing people off (Hey, that's why I did! Seriously. I never realized I was such a rotting asshole).
He berates the people who were losers in high school and are losers now. Schwimmer SHOULD get some credit as shedding his Ross-image, despite Schwimmer's many mannerisms: Clipped speech (William Shattner vocalizations), hoarse and drunken voice and Dustin Hoffman persona (but none of Hoffman's character acting). Schwimmer's range is pretty limited and sit-coms and soaps are the perfect showcase for the mediocre, yet determined.
All the usual types are here. The token gay guy. The geek who's still kind of a geek, but successful. The one who wants his revenge. The former school bully. The high-strung bitch. The neurotic nebbish. All true-to-life. Probably. But no fresh material, no insight or real digging into what's going on. They're all too cartoonish, yet not given any real jokes to deal with. The movie would just rather sit there and be quirky rather than say or do anything in particular. It never surprises you, delights you or interests you very much. It doesn't even really make you laugh.
I can see why Schwimmer must've liked it. All of the vague "jokes": a guy finding "Kick Me" signs on his back, a woman chipping a tooth and looking deformed, a guy "geeked-up" and dancing horribly even for a white guy on purpose. This is all sit-com level stuff. But for some reason, it's easier to take with a laugh-track, commercial-breaks and all in a half-hour.
Fellow "Friends" alumni Lisa Kudrow did the 10th High School Reunion better in "Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion."
Rent that instead.
But all bile aside, here's hoping Schwimmer manages to score next time at bat. And gets a good ACTING showcase as well. In a nutshell, it's just a dull and horribly under-developed and lifeless movie.
IS... there life after "Friends?" For David? I hope so. Let's all hope... pray deep and hard.
by Dane Youssef
It's astonishing that Schwimmer turned down the lead in "Men In Black" (the Will Smith role) for this. He might have been the one to have a lasting career after "Friends." Or at least appear in something good.
No such luck.
"Since You've Been Gone" is yet another movie that showcases the 10th Anniversary High School Reunion. Wow, how many movies are they make around those? Not merely reunions, I mean, everyone deals with those at some point.
But the 10 year post mark is usually when reunion time comes rolling around.
I'm not sure to begin saying everything that's wrong with this movie. Many already have. Many have condensed the problems into a blurb or a couple of sentences. The critic on Epinions.com wrote: "Cons: Bad Acting, Half-Baked Development of Characters, Lack of Direction and Focus in Storyline." But I disagree.
What about the gaping lack of humor, energy and insight?
Still, I guess that's too much for a nutshell.
Aside from Jeff Steinberg's rough-draft script, David Schwimmer's directing is also a chief flaw. And I am about to explain why:
Whenever actors try to direct, there's always a danger that this Thespian-turned-helmer could try to turn the movie, show or whatever into just a bunch of filmed performances.
This director will just focus entirely on performances and skim or completely omit just about everything else.
You know what I mean. Ever notice whenever an actor makes his directorial debut, he has a tendency to turn it into pretty much just a taped collage of actors acting?
Kinda like a portfolio or a resume' on tape? Think about EVERY movie directed by an actor you've ever seen? We're just observing some people act, not a real movie.
But to be fair, that's not ALWAYS how it turns out when an actor directs: ("Braveheart," "Unforgiven," "Zoolander," "Sling Blade," "Now You Know" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind").
And whenever SCREENWRITERS get behind the camera, many have a tendency to just focus on the actors delivery of their dialog and little plot points, twists and morals.
But enough of that crap. Jeez, I'm supposed to be reviewing a movie, not writing a handbook on a director's workshop.
David Schwimmer's other directorial credits include numerous episodes of "Friends," so it's understandable why he kinda cocks up here.
The camera is mostly on auto-pilot. The whole movie is like a boring workplace party with elevator muzak playing. The actors (all from Schwimmer's Lookingglass Theatre Company) all come together and recite easy sit-com one-liners and sit-com situations with sit-com payoffs.
Once again, this COULD be funny and worth-watching. But it's all done with an absolute minimum of energy.
The most Schwimmer DOES bring to the movie is his character Robert S. Levitt, an obnoxious dick who was all the rage in high school, getting apparently popular by pissing people off (Hey, that's why I did! Seriously. I never realized I was such a rotting asshole).
He berates the people who were losers in high school and are losers now. Schwimmer SHOULD get some credit as shedding his Ross-image, despite Schwimmer's many mannerisms: Clipped speech (William Shattner vocalizations), hoarse and drunken voice and Dustin Hoffman persona (but none of Hoffman's character acting). Schwimmer's range is pretty limited and sit-coms and soaps are the perfect showcase for the mediocre, yet determined.
All the usual types are here. The token gay guy. The geek who's still kind of a geek, but successful. The one who wants his revenge. The former school bully. The high-strung bitch. The neurotic nebbish. All true-to-life. Probably. But no fresh material, no insight or real digging into what's going on. They're all too cartoonish, yet not given any real jokes to deal with. The movie would just rather sit there and be quirky rather than say or do anything in particular. It never surprises you, delights you or interests you very much. It doesn't even really make you laugh.
I can see why Schwimmer must've liked it. All of the vague "jokes": a guy finding "Kick Me" signs on his back, a woman chipping a tooth and looking deformed, a guy "geeked-up" and dancing horribly even for a white guy on purpose. This is all sit-com level stuff. But for some reason, it's easier to take with a laugh-track, commercial-breaks and all in a half-hour.
Fellow "Friends" alumni Lisa Kudrow did the 10th High School Reunion better in "Romy & Michelle's High School Reunion."
Rent that instead.
But all bile aside, here's hoping Schwimmer manages to score next time at bat. And gets a good ACTING showcase as well. In a nutshell, it's just a dull and horribly under-developed and lifeless movie.
IS... there life after "Friends?" For David? I hope so. Let's all hope... pray deep and hard.
by Dane Youssef