"Enough Said", Is All about Chemistry

Enough Said

You already know of my personal crusade against films "about nothing". So I'll be clear from the very first sentence. Huge thanks to Nicole Holofcener for making movies about "regular people", with credible situations and feelings. The script (in this case written by Holofcener herself), I will always defend is all about the script. And the actors involved in transforming words and ideas into "flesh & bones" characters.  

"Enough Said" might qualify as a romantic comedy, and indeed some little twists here and there, plus its finale, which might be too much of a slight turn into bland, pleasant territory that "mainstream rom-coms" are exploiting ad nauseam. But this is a movie so full of honesty, solid acting and enduring charms the aforementioned little flaws become almost incidental. 

It's all about second chances, real (and therefore complex) people and their emotional fears. It's all about mature love, something that Hollywood tends to either neglect completely or transform into an extremely silly type of film. Holofcener devotes a wonderful amount of time in dissecting her main characters without failing into too narrative ventures, so Eva (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Albert (James Gandolfini, forever missed) are so well defined their little manias, actions and habits say enough about them. The things that are left unsaid are also there, and any viewer willing to watch the film will recognize them. This idiotic and schizo society tries to make us invulnerable, but we are (fortunately) "fragile things". Because we have feelings, and getting hurt is so frightening. "Enough Said" exposes that ugly truth with a surprising, defiant naturalness. And humour.

It might be true the subplots of the film are somewhat flawed. Marianne (played by infallible Catherine Keener) is too one-dimensional, but I guess it might just serve to counterpoint Eva's attitude towards life and love. Same can be said about Sarah (Toni Collette) and Will (Ben Falcone), Eva's closest friends and a couple always in a quite funny (and surreal) conflict and the daughters subplots (James and Eva have both daughters) might have some more poignancy, as involves some more interesting characters (also a curiosity, Tess, James' daughter, is played by Bono's daughter, Eve Hewson) but they also remain a bit blurred, being there just for the purpose of completing the detailed picture of James and Eva.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus and James Gandolfini are excellent in their performances as Eva and Albert, making every bit of their relationship so credible and endearing. I guess the combination of great script plus great actors still gets the job done (let's hope someone in Hollywood listens). They both carry the weight of their pasts, the failed marriages, the challenges with the growing daughters about to become fully independent (the "empty nest" syndrome) and, foremost, the clash between their life as independent individuals and the chance of being with someone again. The chemistry between the actors is undeniable and every time they share the screen the movie goes way beyond your average, light-hearted comedy. Here's a heart.

And chemistry is precisely the key, the message of the film. You have to risk yourself, defeat your understandable fears, when romance appears. That Holofcener uses a trick (no spoiling) to make Eva decide between the information about James she gathers from an unbeatable source and her own feelings is just a comedic resource. But also an interesting one about perception, misjudgements and excuses: all blatant examples of our human weaknesses. At the end the wise director makes a clear bet, but without a happy ending guarantee. Will it work? Who knows, but it's worth trying. Like Woody Allen would say (check his masterpieces "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" if you like this film). We (still) need the eggs.

SCORE: 7,25/10

"Hitchcock", zero suspense, dull biopic

Hitchcock

Biopics can be a real torture or, when memorable, a fantastic excuse to discover or re-connect with the film's subject. But there's a third "category", which is usually the most common: a movie that leaves you completely indifferent. Not annoying, but really insipid. "Hitchcock" could be the perfect example. Reminded me to "My Week with Marilyn". Take a cultural myth/icon and put it on an unsubstantial movie.

In this sort of films, it doesn't really matter if you are a fan or a hater, because there's not a real attempt of offering any insight of the biopic's character. That is the case of "Hitchcock". Worse, this film doesn't want to talk about the way Sir Alfred Hitchcock approached cinema, being labelled as the "Master of Suspense" (not me). Doesn't aim to show his peculiar relations with her cast (particularly women), wife, or studios. Doesn't pretend to offer any real tension or obsessions. It's just a expensive tv movie, suitable to anyone. Entertaining enough to keep you going, but nothing else.

"Hitchcock" biggest failure is the lame plot. The whole movie is focused on the director's battle to make "Psycho". Yep, director Sacha Gervasi probably believed that having such a movie classic (not for me) as the plot's subject he didn't have to care about the screenplay. Wrong. From the very beginning we are in front of a game of incoherencies, plotholes. Gervasi chooses a supposedly very dramatic scene that should justify why Hictchcock needed to do "Psycho"... forgetting that before that moment all we had was a triumphant director presuming of their latest success, "North by Northwest". Gervasi gives Vera Miles a shot, on which we assume there was a very "special" issue regarding her relation with the director, then her character gets almost abandoned. I could go on. And the nightmarish scenes on which Alfred "lives" inside the novel that inspired the film are ridiculous.  

With such an empty script, what keeps the movie alive is the marital/work tension between Alfred and his wife Alma. Not because it has any particular strength, but at least it does have coherency and a very solid actress, Helen Mirren, carrying the weight of the film on her reliable shoulders. The rest of the impressive cast does what they can. Good actors on secondary roles like Toni Collette or Michael Wincott have very unrewarding lines. Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh and Jessica Biel as Vera Miles have barely no space to be more than mannequins. On a side note, its a crime that two of the most beautiful actresses look that unattractive on screen. 

And of course, Anthony Hopkins as the "great man himself". Well, he looks like a perfect caricature of the man. You can put all the prosthetics you can, gain weight, and perfect voice and mannerisms as much as you can. That will only mean a fantastic recreation of the person's aesthetics. But you still need a direction, a purpose, a turmoil to get the character alive. Hopkins tries, and as the gifted actor he is, he saves dozens of scenes... but it's still an artifice. He is the epitome of the whole movie, pointless, weak, lifeless. Doesn't harm, but save it just for killing time.  

SCORE: 5/10