Smart People (C or 2/4 stars)
Sometimes in life, it is the 'Smart People' who appear the dumbest. That is apparent in this dramedy, directed by Noam Murro. The basic plot revolves around an emotionally crippled, difficult-to-deal-with widow who receives an unexpected visit from his adopted brother. They aren't happy. And neither is his teenage daughter. After getting seriously injured, this man starts what best can be called a 'tentative' relationship with his female doctor. Perhaps she is the medicine he needs to redeem his life. The story is fine; the performances are decent enough. But by the time the film ends, many subplots are left dangling by the wayside.
Carnegie Mellon English professor Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid) is, basically, a pompous jerk. He lives his life as if being smart is an unwanted burden. His 17 yr. old Republican daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page) is cantankerous. And his older son, James (Ashton Holmes) loves getting under everyone's skin. Their unpleasant lifestyle is interrupted by the arrival of Lawrence's nomadic slob of a brother, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church). Circumstances arise where Lawrence falls & cannot drive for at least 6 months. One of the low-key & funny humors of the film involves Chuck agreeing to chauffeur him around, but is NEVER reliable. Things start to change for Lawrence when he starts to date the doctor who treated him after his fall, Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker).
Apparently, Lawrence was her English professor way back when. He doesn't recognize her, but finds her attractive nevertheless. She had a crush on him in college, and is game for a date with him. The 1st date goes miserably. But for some reason, they still seem drawn to each other. They have there ups & downs (his being completely self-absorbed). And something major happens to both of them that could change the course of their lives forever. Their courtship is the main plot. But there are subplots galore: 1) Vanessa's odd affection for Uncle Chuck. 2) Her disdain for Lawrence dating the doctor. And a 3rd subplot involves James' college life activities. None of these subplots are overly interesting. They're just kind of 'there' ... waiting to see if something evolves.
I was trying to figure out the story arcs; why the characters said & did certain things; how certain relationships would end up; and what it would mean for them. But those arc(s) never materialize. The film needed to be more perceptive about the characters. Acting-wise, the best performance comes from T H Church. He's well aware of the type of guy Chuck is and he runs away with it. Just as in 'Juno', Ellen Page is stellar at playing these whip smart, annoying young girls (though, Juno had much more humanity by the end). S J Parker plays Janet as a sort of serious, but gentler 'Carrie' (Sex & the City). I neither loved nor disliked her portrayal. And Dennis Quaid surprisingly plays 'dislikeable' very well (haha). But that begs a question: why should I care about any of these unappealing people? I needed to see more depth in the characterizations. Before things come together in the end, I needed to see 'why' they were so miserable in the 1st place.
I don't want to make it sound like I loathed the film; not at all. At 89 min., it's brisk, amusing, & intelligently written (much more so than most summer movies). But at the end, when you leave the theater or turn off the DVD, you'll be saying, "That was goodish, but so what?". You get the sense there are MANY missing scenes throughout that 'may' have helped provide an emotional resonance behind the somewhat-happy ending that's provided. For a movie with this much intelligence, I craved for more imagination, a better climax, and a full-bodied experience ... not a half-cooked one.
Carnegie Mellon English professor Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid) is, basically, a pompous jerk. He lives his life as if being smart is an unwanted burden. His 17 yr. old Republican daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page) is cantankerous. And his older son, James (Ashton Holmes) loves getting under everyone's skin. Their unpleasant lifestyle is interrupted by the arrival of Lawrence's nomadic slob of a brother, Chuck (Thomas Haden Church). Circumstances arise where Lawrence falls & cannot drive for at least 6 months. One of the low-key & funny humors of the film involves Chuck agreeing to chauffeur him around, but is NEVER reliable. Things start to change for Lawrence when he starts to date the doctor who treated him after his fall, Janet Hartigan (Sarah Jessica Parker).
Apparently, Lawrence was her English professor way back when. He doesn't recognize her, but finds her attractive nevertheless. She had a crush on him in college, and is game for a date with him. The 1st date goes miserably. But for some reason, they still seem drawn to each other. They have there ups & downs (his being completely self-absorbed). And something major happens to both of them that could change the course of their lives forever. Their courtship is the main plot. But there are subplots galore: 1) Vanessa's odd affection for Uncle Chuck. 2) Her disdain for Lawrence dating the doctor. And a 3rd subplot involves James' college life activities. None of these subplots are overly interesting. They're just kind of 'there' ... waiting to see if something evolves.
I was trying to figure out the story arcs; why the characters said & did certain things; how certain relationships would end up; and what it would mean for them. But those arc(s) never materialize. The film needed to be more perceptive about the characters. Acting-wise, the best performance comes from T H Church. He's well aware of the type of guy Chuck is and he runs away with it. Just as in 'Juno', Ellen Page is stellar at playing these whip smart, annoying young girls (though, Juno had much more humanity by the end). S J Parker plays Janet as a sort of serious, but gentler 'Carrie' (Sex & the City). I neither loved nor disliked her portrayal. And Dennis Quaid surprisingly plays 'dislikeable' very well (haha). But that begs a question: why should I care about any of these unappealing people? I needed to see more depth in the characterizations. Before things come together in the end, I needed to see 'why' they were so miserable in the 1st place.
I don't want to make it sound like I loathed the film; not at all. At 89 min., it's brisk, amusing, & intelligently written (much more so than most summer movies). But at the end, when you leave the theater or turn off the DVD, you'll be saying, "That was goodish, but so what?". You get the sense there are MANY missing scenes throughout that 'may' have helped provide an emotional resonance behind the somewhat-happy ending that's provided. For a movie with this much intelligence, I craved for more imagination, a better climax, and a full-bodied experience ... not a half-cooked one.