0
I'll just re-post what I wrote in the "What is John Cusack up to?" thread after I saw the movie Friday night...
Overall I must say I enjoyed Serendipity, and Cusack is wonderful (of course). But I'd only rate it three out of five stars.
It's certainly not a bad movie, but it's sure not a great one either. Worth seeing? Sure. But given Cusack in front of the camera and Peter Chelsom behind it, I was hoping for more.
Chelsom's first two movies, Hear My Song (1991) and Funny Bones (1995), were charming and weird and different and loads of fun. But since those two movies I think he's had trouble finding material that fits his sensibility. His first U.S.-only production, The Mighty (1998), was well-intentioned but very flat and ultimately misguided - especially in comparison to Funny Bones and Hear My Song. His fourth film, Town & Country (2001), a would-be farce with out-of-control budget and distribution problems, is already an infamous flop.
Serendipity is easily his best movie since Funny Bones...but that's not saying much. It's still missing something for me, that perhaps indefinable something that turns a good movie into a magical one. It's probably no coincidence that Chelsom hasn't been credited as screenwriter on any of these projects since Funny Bones.
After Chelsom's embarassment with Town & Country and Cusack's listless work in the totally uninspired and vacuous America's Sweethearts (2001) earlier this year, Serendipity is a giant step in the right direction for both. But it's still nowhere close to what each is capable of. Compared to recent smart and sweet mainstream romantic comedies such as High Fidelity, Grosse Pointe Blank, Return To Me, As Good As It Gets, and Rushmore, Serendipity is merely an also-ran.
Understand, it is 100% better than the dumbed-down gross-out yuk-yuck fests that have unfortunately dominated the market too much of late, and for that alone it is a relief and an enjoyable couple hours in the dark. I just wish it had been even more.
Reply to Topic
