I see what you're doing here, you're trolling to take stock of exactly _why_ so many folks dislike this flick. Clever!
OK, I'll bite. I disliked it because it was, in a word, artless.
The director seems to have had very little idea what the story was that he was pretending to direct. So, for example, Adam Scott (and flanking office henchdudes) are directed to be zany, comedic-romp office nemeses. As talented as Scott is (he takes direction well), the tone of that footage is utterly isolated, hence sits on this flick like a tarantula on a cream puff. I think the flick was trying to create a wry tension between Mitty's (Stiller) fain character and his "busting out", but the storyboarding and/or editing winds up just sort of making it look like disjointedness.
The romantic thread didn't work; it looked like something summarily macrame'ed in by marketing suits. There was that weird carbuncle near the beginning, with Mitty's fantasy of diving into a building... but when that stunning little bit of exposition is over, the production team apparently noted that (in spite of all that product placement money in the budget) all the SFX budget had been drained, so... that's it for that angle!
And... Oh, man!... don't get me started on the product placement! Way, way too obvious.
I hate, hate, hate seeing venerable star power deployed this way. Shirley MacLaine should have just hit the streets and sold lemonade instead. She'd have lost money, but saved some serious face.
I suspect that half-way (a quarter way?(!)) through production they must've become aware that they were getting ready to unleash a dying dog on the world, but had too much institutional commitment on the line to just pull the plug (sort of like the movie-in-a-movie of Fellini's 8-1/2!). What can you do? Nothing you can do but crank up the PR machine and rely on the dependable tastelessness of the American moviegoing public.
--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield
reply
share
jajceboy
10 years ago
I just thought it was disappointing. Was it meant to be a drama? Comedy? Both?
Somewhere it feels as if Stiller had a great idea but never made anything out of that idea.
It's a film for middle-aged people about middle-aged people made by a middle-aged director.
It's a film for middle-aged people, who gave up on their lives a long time ago and suddenly feels they should do something about it. That's the impression I got from the film.
reply
share
rzajac
9 years ago
Right. It so utterly lacked focus that it felt like one of those weird, useless dreams.
I think I've figured something out: You can use its failure as an artistic product as a window of insight into the big-budget film-making business: _Mitty_ is an example of what happens when the producers kinda believe in the project, but also kinda *don't* believe in it. That's not often showcased as horrendously as it is here, so this flick has a special utility.
Look at just one example of how this plays out: The product placement. The Weinsteins simply-and-for-true *believe in* Quentin Tarantino. He won't have product placement, and the Weinsteins respond to this demand by saying, "And so it shall be," and they cough up the cash he needs to do whatever he needs to do--including hiring artists to draft the logos for Quentin's made-up products! Period. And he repays the Weinsteins handsomely by taking that budget and working it with passion, focus, and all the filmic artfullness he can muster, drawing on his encyclopedic knowledge of film.
Other examples of Stiller's pittance budget being ill-spent was; bad, uneven direction; the kitchen-sink approach to compensating for lackluster story management (the restrained sprinkling of A-listers, breathtaking scenery, and a gratuitous will-she-won't-she "love" interest); running out of CGI money, thereby making the one CGI scene appear isolated and gratuitous; ... and on and on.
It looks to me like the producers of _Mitty_ dealt poor Mr. Stiller a Catch-22: They essentially said, "Here's some money; let's see what you can do with it," along with a tacit implication that the project had to be doomed with such a small and shoddily-spent budget. Were they trying to make him fail so they'd be able to justify ignoring him in the future?
It's sad because I *like* Stiller very much. He throws such weight and gravitas as he _does_ carry into little labors of AV media storytelling love; like his fun, smart, and frolicsome involvement with The Birthday Boys and lots of other neat stuff. I would have loved to see him command a full measure of respect and support for _Mitty_--or perhaps for a somewhat better conceived and fully-realizable project.
--
And I'd like that. But that 5h1t ain't the truth. --Jules Winnfield
reply
share
bababear
9 years ago
The 'pittance budget' Stiller was working with was a reported $90 million. That seems to be ample considering that it's being used to make a movie, not build a hospital complex or university.
The movie would have been much better if Stiller had only been given $9 million and told to make do. That would have eliminated the vast majority of special effects and exotic location settings and forced the creative people to focus on overlooked elements like plot and character.
By the way, I've only watched the first twenty minutes and found it totally craptastic so far. Hope it gets better; it can't get much worse.
reply
share
trisul
9 years ago
I agree with all the criticism ... but, I thought it was visually so beautiful, and the music really amplified it all, so I really enjoyed watching it, even if it boring.
reply
share