Discuter de An American Pickle
Discuter → Films → An American Pickle → Générales
Doesn't really add much
posté par Jacinto CupboardSTAFFMOD le 15 août 2020 à 21h07
The whole Rip Van Winkle, fish out of water thing is a very old and very crowded genre. It's fertile ground for commentary and comedy for two primary reasons. Firstly it allows for satirical comment on everyday aspects of life as it is observed or explained to an outsider. If the outsider is also from another time this effect can be amplified. Secondly, it introduces the idea of the child as parent; that is to have the notionally junior of the situation having to teach or babysit his elder or parent. Encino Man, The Second Hundred Years, Perfect Strangers, Moscow on the Hudson...the list of movies and TV shows that cover similar territory is pretty long.
Unfortunately, An American Pickle doesn't bring anything new; which is essential if you are walking into well covered territory. A few passing swipes at some low hanging fruit: the fickleness of social media, the idiocy of 'artesenal' products, hipsterism- all without any really incisive commentary. Just a quick sneer and on we go. I had hoped, given Rogen's comments in interviews, that he might have something to say about Jewish identity. Well, he does, sorta. But it's only in the last 15 minutes and then the entire subject is so glib and fatuous he might not have bothered.
This movie is worth the hour and a half if you have some spare time. I wouldn't suggest anyone pay any money for it. The story and script is so lightweight and effortless, and not in a good way, you can imagine it being written in the back of a limo on the way home from a gig. 5/10
Réponse de jorgito2001
le 18 août 2020 à 23h04
The trailer had me sold and I immediately watched it once it was on HBO Max...unfortunately, the trailer was MUCH better then the film. I agree it didn't bring anything really new to the table, but I do admire Rogen's ability to play dual roles.
Réponse de Jacinto Cupboard
le 18 août 2020 à 23h41
spoilers
I suspect that Rogen playing both principal roles is part of the problem. With two actors playing off each other a dynamic would develop, you might even get some improvisation going or script tweaks, something to develop the relationship between the characters. As I understand it, Rogen filmed all the Herschel scenes, shaved off the beard and went back and did the Ben role. This pretty much confines you to whatever had already been written. The characters can't develop further.
Central to the story is the conflict between Herschel and Ben, but as the movie is, it really is inexplicable. Ben is the sole survivor of his family and has issues dealing with the loss of his family and his heritage. His almost immediate hostility to the arrival of a genuine forebear makes no sense; and it pretty much has to because it is that hostility that drives most of the movie. The cute little turanaround towards the end when Herschel realises that Ben's rejection of Herschel, and by implication his heritage, is a result of his fear of not living up to that legacy, is flat out infantile.
My reference to it being written in the back of a limo on the way home from a gig isn't me just being facetious. I doubt whether an unknown comedian would have sold this project on its merits. This is an example of a successful comic being given a vanity project without proper oversight. And Rogen playing both roles is a part of that. It's understandable that a comedic actor would want to follow in the footsteps of other actors who have done the multiple roles in one film thing: Lewis, Sellers, Guinness and others. But those guys had the advantage of better writing, direction and overall support.
Réponse de JustinJackFlash
le 12 décembre 2021 à 13h03
Just American Psycho would do.