If Paul Thomas Anderson was rendered brain damaged this would be the film he would do. A series of interconnected, pathetic people in the greater Baltimore area are having relationship problems. Why is it that people in large metropolitan areas can't get into a relationship? Is it like Baskin Robbins? You just can't pick one.
What you get in HJNTIY is a bunch of pathetic people who don't know what they want. Hey, I know why he didn't call you back! It's because you're acting f*&king nuts! Rocket science. If the entire human race acted like people in romantic comedies then we would die out. These people would have issues just perpetuating the species.
Now I could say something witty like that I'm "just not into this movie". But I'll just say that it's a piece of shit, which is the same thing because I'm just not into shit either.
To make a long story short, Revolutionary Road is a film about two bi-polar people who end up getting married and making eachother miserable. Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April (Kate Winslet) are a married couple who everyone holds up as THE married couple in the neighborhood. You know the ones, the pair that should be on poster for domestic bliss. Robert Young and Donna Reed in the flesh.
But they're not happy. They're down right miserable in the 1950's hole that their peg fills nicely. And it grates on them. Frank is in a typical shit '50's job that he hates. April is the typical wife, stuck at home baking pies and exchanging gossip because that is her defined role in their little hole. They're in a rut and they can't get out until they come up with a drastic plan, which is welcome because it will push their peg out of the hole that they're stuck into. It's when the plan goes up in smoke that they realize (or don't) how they really feel about each other.
Now Revolutionary Road is a finely acted film. Winslet deserved the Oscar for this one and the rest of the cast is fantastic. It's the film itself that lets you down. There is no hero in this, unless you count the lunatic that comes to dinner and actually seems to be the only sane person in the film. The locals all have quirks, yet this man is like a demented messiah that cuts through the layers of nuclear family crap. I get that. I get that Frank doesn't know what the hell he wants almost as if he has no identity and Winslet is drowning in her own hell that issued her an apron. I just didn't buy it. Even with the great acting, it still seemed forced, kind of like the entire point of this is to piss on the 1950's nuclear family. It is and it's cool, but it's just so hard to buy it. The thing that really took me out of the film is the two children that Frank and April have. They're only in the film for set decorations, serving their purpose and being easily sent off to birthday parties and other crap so they don't see mom and dad hate on each other. Total crap. Kids see mom and dad fight, especially these two psychos. It's like we're ALMOST pissing on the 1950's, but we'll pull it back when kids are involved.
So, in closing, come for the acting, just don;t pay attention to the ham handed script.
Night at the Museum 2 is two hours of one cliche after another. It's a film where you know it's going to be crap, but you go in thinking that it could be made into something worth a damn, but in the end it is still just crap. You know the story, the Smithsonian ends up coming to life and Larry (Ben Stiller) has to save the day from some evil blah, blah, blah. This film is so lifeless and uninteresting I can't even write about it anymore.
