Unfortunately David Gordon Green has failed again. Not since "George Washington" has he created something worth watching unconditionally. Though touted by some critics as his comeback film, "Prince Avalanche" is yet another disappointment from the director. The film tells the story of two road repairers, Alvin (Paul Rudd) and Lance (Emile Hirsch), in the aftermath of a raging forest fire somewhere in Texas. They're, as is cliche, polar opposites. Alvin is a wannabe man's man who enjoys solitude and caring for his girlfriend (Lance's sister) by sending checks. Lance is an immature dumb oaf who just wants to get laid on the weekends. Well, one weekend comes and goes. Alvin gets an upsetting letter from his girlfriend, and Lance fails in his mission to get laid. They're both alarmingly upset about what's happened to them, they fight/bicker, and yet (cliche) they develop a close bond.
The film tries to strike a balance between hardcore (or mumblecore) indie and laugh-your-ass-off (or not if you're this writer) Judd Apatow film. It fails horrendously in this regard. It feels like it has no idea what it's trying to accomplish and the tone is all over the place. This makes for particularly awkward viewing. I think what's worse about the film is it fails to be authentic. The whole time, Paul Rudd and Emile Hirsch feel stiff. You might think that the fact that much of the dialogue is improvisation would give some air of realism to their performances. However, it feels like the director turned on the camera and Rudd and Hirsch just say a whole lot of nothing.
Finally, the cinematography is off and on. Occasionally DP, Tim Orr, gets mood and beauty right. For instance when Alvin is fishing, Lance is swimming, the two are drinking and riding in a wheelbarrow, or Alvin is walking away in slo-mo crying, the film is as beautiful as anything you've seen this year. But for the most part, I was asking myself "How was he so good at shooting 'George Washington' and so bad here?" The hand-held stuff was terrible. You either have to move that camera slow or fast; not in-between speeds. I can't register it, and it's too fast for my eyes not to try. Finally, what looks like post-production zooms, were hideous. They did not do it for me. And for all of his attempts to get some of his original Malick influence in the film, Green is afraid to hold a shot for longer than a few seconds. In a film that tries to be part reflective about nature and the growing bond between two chaps, I found myself reflecting more about shoddy film-making instead.
But don't get me wrong, it's not all bad. It's definitely not the worst thing I've seen this year (that award definitely goes to "Trance"). There are some laughs, and the score, while not riveting, is interesting. Two supporting characters, a trucker and an old woman, steal the scenes they're in. The trucker always has fantastic Texas trucker things to say. The scene with the woman in her old burned down house is quite moving, even when the camera movement fails to be easy or interesting to watch. The pacing of the story-telling is fantastic, even when individual shots appear and disappear in an instant. The ending shots are the best part, not because it's the end of a mediocre film (well that too), but because it shows authentic people in the aftermath of the fires. I found myself going, "I would have much rather watched THAT film." Perhaps I could recommend it to those who are big fans of Paul Rudd (though it's not really the kind of comedy one might have come to expect to see him in) or those that want to see what watered down indie film looks like. However, I wouldn't recommend spending the money to see it in theaters like this old fool did.
No comments:
Post a Comment