« US Criticizes Foreign Dude Who Fails to Care for His Own Country First | Home | High Councilman Calls Eleventh Article of Faith "No Longer Relevant" »
April 5, 2006
Well Below Prime
A couple of weeks ago I received Prime, starring Uma Thurman and Meryl Streep, in the mail from Netflix. A few days later Reese Witherfork mentioned that she was trying to get through this movie but found it boring, disappointing and "too Hollywood." Because RW is pretty freakin' astute, this assessment was enough to transform the mild anticipation I felt about the movie into vague apprehension, but as I am nothing if not dutiful, and as I eventually ran out of other things to watch, I finally put the damn movie in the dvd player, only to discover that Ms. Witherfork was right, and then some.
This movie is dreadful for so many reasons, but I'll list a few of the worst.
1. Everyone remarks repeatedly on how unusually charming and funny the male lead is, but he never says a single truly charming or funny thing.
2. The male lead has a best friend who behaves so repulsively that he can never get a second date with a woman. After he insults a woman to the point that she refuses to see him ever again, he waits a few days, drives to a bakery, buys a cream pie, then drives to her home and throws it in her face. This is played for laughs.
3. The character played by Uma says completely stupid things to her therapist. For instance, after this 37-year-old shiksa goes to bed with this 23-year-old member of the tribe, she tells said therapist how great the sex is (the joke being that the therapist realizes that she is the mother of this hot young stud). Much to the therapist's dismay, the hot divorcee elaborates--something to the effect of, "This is a weird thing to tell your therapist, but I'm too embarrassed to tell anyone else this. This guy has the most perfect penis."
Well! And this from a woman with a whole coterie of hip gay friends. I admit I am hag to only two fags, and it's been a while since I've been in therapy. Still, it seems to me that if you've got a slew of gay BFF's, you tell THEM how great your boyfriend's penis is--for one thing, they might be interested, if somewhat skeptical. They're among the people most likely to ask for details.
4. The juvenile nature of the male characters, the fact that the male lead is so great in the sack and the fact that the movie is written and directed by some young nobody makes it easy to imagine a really annoying scenario explaining how the movie was made: some young guy is thinking about how great it would be if he could bang some hot 30-something actress like Halle Berry/ Uma Thurman/ Nicole Kidman--then asks himself how he could possibly seduce HB/ UT/ NK, only to realize he could pull it off thanks to his wit, charm and perfect dick, of course! Then he remembers that his mother would be completely horrified, so he could never tell her....but what if she found out anyway? Hey, that's a great plot for a movie!!
5. The dialogue is so unexceptional and the pace so slow that after the first 20 minutes I kept hitting fast-forward. I'd stop if it looked like there was any real conflict or character development, which wasn't that often--and when I did slow the dvd player to normal speed, what I saw was so plodding and predicable that I still could tell exactly what was going on--as well as guess what would happen next. The movie was 100 minutes long, but I managed to watch the whole thing in half that time.
6. However, the most upsetting thing about this movie is the shame it arouses--that's right, shame: shame at watching Meryl Streep's degradation. One of the finest actresses of our day has been reduced to playing an incredibly annoying role in an incredibly annoying movie. It's enough to break your heart, and not in a Deer Hunter kind of way.
Long story short: avoid this movie! It is prime shit, and it will wound and depress you.
Posted by holly at April 5, 2006 9:09 AM
I haven't seen this, but even the previews looked embarrassing. However, I’m always glad when Meryl gets work. I just can’t bear it when actresses of a certain age disappear into thin air!
Hmm, now I’m wondering what film has used “therapy” as an interesting setting? I’ll have to keep thinking…
Poor Meryl's best performance of the last while was on the Oscars with Lily Tomlin when they introduced Robert Altman. She was loose, free and funny or at least seemed so. Good review and I love the fact that the running time was only about 50 minutes for you - haha.
I get so annoyed when I realize I've wasted my time on a bad movie. The latest yawner was "I Heart Huckabees." And the impulses were the same as the ones you describe in the movie you saw: somebody's kid got a chance to direct the old "greats." He did not embarrass or humiliate them, but it sure was a boring flick. Funny thing: I can't even remember what the damn movie was about. But I'll never forget the episode of "The Sopranos" I saw the next night, from the 4th season. The face-off between Tony and Meadow! I felt like I was experiencing it myself. Real drama.
Frankengirl--I agree with you, it's sad to see great actresses disappear just because they're not totally hot and young any more, and Meryl is one of our best, no matter what her age. But I have to agree with Dale: the best thing she's done recently was that skit at the Oscars--it reminded me why she's been nominated for so many awards in the first place! If I were a playwright, I'd be crafting a role specially designed for her....
Hattie--I actually enjoyed Huckabees, but it was definitely quirky and goofy, and I have no trouble seeing why someone else would hate it.
I guess it sometimes comes down to a matter of trusting our own tastes and interests: while I've certainly been surprised by movies I didn't think I would like and been very glad someone convinced me to watch them, I've more often been persuaded to sit through something I was pretty sure I'd hate, and did indeed hate.
And it also comes down to a matter of being willing to hit fast-forward or leave the theatre, because once I've spent the money on a movie I hate, all I can salvage is the time I might spend watching it through to the end.
I also agree that it's shameful the way women are not allowed to age as actors, especially where men seem to be able to get pretty old and still be cast in young men's roles. There are important exceptions -- Clint Eastwood acts his age, more or less -- but it's symptomatic of something dreadful that so few roles for women older than 35 come up.
There was a bit on the BBC television recently about Sharon Stone and her new role in "Basic Instinct II." Notwithstanding my general allergy to franchise movies, Stone was trying to use the release of the movie to discuss this very problem, of women not being able to get interesting roles after they are perceived to have reached a certain age. Of course, the coverage cast Stone in a positive light by pointing out what a hottie she is while pushing 50 -- not a word about whether she's a good actor, or whether casting her as a sexual predator is a good role! Both topics worthy of some reflection, I would think.
I love Sigourney Weaver, who also seems to have trouble landing roles appropriate to her formidable talents -- though she was great in "Death and the Maiden."
Whoa, Holly!! I almost missed this post; I'm glad I didn't. Yep, yep, and yep. Another thing that bugged me was the portrayal of the stock "gay" best friend. When I watched this movie, I just though how pissed I'd be if I was gay and I was watching this crap. Can't Hollywood think of another way to portray gays? I'm getting tired of their bullshit. Real tired.