Thumbsucker (2005 - Mike Mills)
I saw this earlier in the week and was totally uninspired to write anything about it. That's because I found it to be a pretty flat and ultimately not terribly involving film. Lou Taylor Pucci stars as Justin, a withdrawn and distracted suburban High School senior who isn't realizing any of whatever potential may be dormant inside him. He uses sucking his thumb as a comfort device, much to the consternation of his father (Vincent D'Onofrio). His mother (Tilda Swinton) is more supportive, but neither parent seems to be able to help him out of his funk. Then the school diagnoses him as likely suffering from ADHD and suggest medication. Justin's parents are against the idea, but he latches on to the disorder and the pills as a relief, and immediately after going on the drugs his creativity and focus burst forth at an astounding pace, including captaining the debate team he was close to being kicked off of by his weird teacher (Vince Vaughn) and finally having the courage to talk to the classmate he's been longing for (Kelli Garner). But are the drugs simply offering a temporary placebo effect, what are the consequences of the meds, and can he give up his thumb? I like the main cast (save from Keanu Reeves, who's character is unnecessary) and they all do well enough with what they're given, but the film offers no surprises, no revelations and just kind of clicks along. The direction is solid on a technical level, but the power and quirkiness everyone must have felt was lurking in this story never comes to the fore. It'll be a decent little movie to rent or catch on cable TV down the line, but never becomes the special film it thinks it is.
GRADE: C+
Proof (2005 - John Madden)
I never saw
Proof performed on stage, certainly not the original Tony-winning production starring Mary Louise Parker, but I did read it, and I loved David Auburn's ear for and rhythm of dialogue, found the structure very satisfying, and the four main characters were an interesting quartet. A big screen adaptation was almost inevitible. And now here it is, obvious awards bait with Oscar winners Gwyneth Paltrow in the lead and Anthony Hopkins in support, with "it" boy Jake Gyllenhaal and the generally underrated indie veteran Hope Davis rounding out the main cast. Directed by John Madden (
Shakespeare in Love) with a screenplay adapted by Auburn himself with Rebecca Miller (
Personal Velocity), expectation have to be pretty high going in....and
Proof delivers.
I know the overexposure in the media of Gwyneth Paltrow can have many rejecting her outright, but she's very good at the center of the film as Catherine, the daughter of a legendarily brilliant mathematician. Hopkins is that man who revolutionized three fields before he was twenty-two, but in the last twenty years of his life has slipped quietly into dementia. Catherine took it upon herself to look after her father full-time rather than see him institutionalized, but it has taken a toll on her. I won't get into the rest of the plot, as discovering the story is part of the fun, but it does become a mystery of sorts, and an effective one at that. Gyllenhaal plays a graduate student who admires Hopkins, and Hope Davis is Catherine's sister who doesn't understand any theoretical math and left town to start a life of her own years ago. All four actors are very well cast in their roles, but this is really Paltrow's movie to carry and she does so wonderfully, in a way that makes her Oscar win for
Shakespeare in Love look like the lightweight fluff that it was. Her performance is quiet and controlled and nuanced, and I think easily the best dramatic work she has done.
As a fan of the play, I do have some quibbles with decisions that were made in the adaptation. I didn't mind so much the opening up of some of the scenes to take place away from the house - which you expect when stage productions are made into movies, but the main scene that was added I think was too out-of-character for Catherine and doesn't gel with her attitude in the following bits, they inexplicably cut a nice long speech from the Hopkins character, and I did find the way they cut up one of the crucial final scenes essentially into two seperate pieces unnecessary and awkward. BUT for anyone who doesn't know the play, of course you won't even know these little details and it won't matter in the slightest. But any other fans
The subject of genius being touched with maddness is certainly not a new one, but I still love the overall structure of the story, and the interaction between the characters with that crisp and intelligent dialogue remains the strength of
Proof.
GRADE: A-
Reply to Topic
