Review: Chosen Family

Year: 2024 (UK Digital Release 2025)

Director: Heather Graham

Screenplay: Heather Graham

Starring: Heather Graham, John Brotherton, Andrea Savage, Michael Gross, Julie Halston, Thomas Lennon, Julia Stiles.

 Synopsis is here:

With films no longer being the centrepiece of media consumption, I was surprised that I now miss genres that I’ve usually been more dismissive of. Romantic comedies are one of those genres. Once a staple of the film calendar, rom-coms feel rarer these days, with many relegated to online streaming platforms.  Such films have not been completely eradicated. However, Google a list of recent romantic comedy titles and bear witness to rather deary, forgettable titles.

Enter Chosen Family; a frizzy but mostly harmless rom-com, with the main draw being Heather Graham operating as lead, writer and director of the whole shebang. The tone found in Chosen Family is what many would expect from its director. It’s a sugar bubble of a movie. Sweet and light but with not much else inside.  It’s never afraid to look a bit silly. However, this leads to problems in the third act when the narrative wants to say somewhat serious things. Late on, the film delivers a plot revelation which hits a bum note, asking the audience to take on board a deeply emotional incident in a movie that was at first far more invested with Graham performing an inappropriate dance-off with a child. Films like Chosen Family inadvertently highlight how much of a deft touch directors have with their material.

Chosen Family is well-intentioned in what it’s trying to do. Graham plays a people-pleasing yoga instructor, Ann. A woman whose romantic life is in the trash heap, while her family pepper her with their mini manipulations. Her solace lies with her friends who stand by her through thick and thin. Even when the group have suspicions that the handsome date they’ve picked for her (John Brotherton) may have a hidden flaw. For the most part, Chosen Family has all the markings of a live, laugh, love motivational slogan come to life.

What’s interesting is what Graham has taken from a storied career as an actress, with much of the film managing to have the vibe of her multi-episode stint as Dr Molly Clock on Scrubs. Chosen Family bounces along with a Sitcom energy, packing a truckload of typical plot points and dialogue that wouldn’t feel out of place in a 30-minute, 22-episode season of a show called “Something Breezy” or similar. The film’s form compounds the televisual aspect, with Graham using repetitive drone establishing shots and standardly blocked compositions as main visual decisions. Nothing is that bad, but not much is particularly striking. Although enough of it is passingly distracting.

It helps if the viewer still has one foot stuck in the early 00s. Chosen Family is a film in which Graham’s hapless yoga instructor is doing enough to live comfortably as a rather basic gym teacher (the film nearly always has her starting and finishing lessons but rarely having her do anything strenuous), yet seems astonished at the idea of broadening her appeal using social media. Not everyone can establish popularity on internet platforms, but Graham’s character is way out of the loop. So much so that the film uses the old “she accidentally posted too much on socials” as an inciting incident for the film. There’s a naivety here, as the world is now almost trained to post every little opinion of themselves with impunity. Graham’s character is only just past the ideal age for the social media platforms the film recognises. This makes Chosen Family feel behind the curve with certain things. Don’t believe me? The black landlord who urges Ann to go on socials is a great example.  There’s a tiredness in the stereotype that leans more towards a sort of innocence than any malice.

This weird innocence is part of Chosen Family’s charm.  Ann is an amalgamation of what I think of Graham in a few of the roles I’ve seen her in. Naïve, attractive, yet strangely passive and happy-go-lucky. She’s never been a go-to actress for heavy, poignant roles, which is why some of Chosen Family feels odd late on. But her on-screen presence is pleasant enough to watch, even though much of the film seems to involve Ann asking her friends, “What do I do now?”. A sizable chunk of Chosen Family stems from autobiographical strands of Graham’s life, so it is interesting to see how Ann is conceived as a character, even though a lot around her is half-baked.

It should be said, however, that Graham picks a seasoned cast of character actors who all have their appeal. She also has the guts to give certain plot strands on slightly more melancholic terms than expected, with the film’s obvious title being particularly on point. It’s also nice to see Julia Stiles in the role of Ann’s substance-abusing sister, despite being sidelined for long stretches of the movie. But this seems to be the case for much of Chosen Family. Graham scatters a broadly amusing variety of raw materials, but nothing fits together well enough to make anything solid.

Chosen Family is available on Digital Release from 21st April.

Dug what I write? Buy Me a Ko-fi!

 

 

 

Review: I Give It a Year

Year: 2013

Director: Dan Mazer

Screenplay: Dan Mazer

Starring: Rafe Spall, Stephen Merchant, Rose Byrne, Anna Farris, Simon Baker

Synopsis is here

Within fifteen minutes of screentime; the romantic comedy I give it a year had shown its hand.  The worst thing is that it only took 2 shots for the movies narrative to fall into place. Guessing the plot so easily doesn't make me a genius. With the amount of movies most of us watch, we all know the narrative beats subconsciously. However the freshness is always in the way a director arranges his scenes and moments that will disarms us. A shot that runs a bit too long could signify a moment of perfect pitch, or give the game away. Before the end of the first act, I knew that the third would lose its fizzle.

The film doesn’t rest on its laurels. As perfunctory as things occur, the film’s climax gives us a nice spin on a romantic comedy convention that even the most well versed fans may be slightly tired of. The cast give it their all, with the likes of Stephen Merchant and Rafe Spall bring a bit of charm to their well worn archetypes. Rose Byrne does exceedingly well in playing a portraying a character I never wanted to see happy, while Anna Faris becomes near unrecognisable as the slightly drippy U.S friend who decided to go away because...well I shouldn’t say more. Not that I need to, Dan Mazer’s screenplay and direction has humorous moments, but never really steps up to hit the home run need to be anything more than a late night rental.

I don't expect to go into rom-coms expecting the filmmakers to reinvent the wheel. There is a reason why we watch these things and I give it a year does ok with most of them, I guess. But when you’re more interested in the geographical anomalies that occur in the films London Soho setting. Then clearly there's a disconnect.

My girlfriend who brought the film round, reprimanded me as I guessed correctly which way the film was heading. "Why can't you just watch it" she exclaimed. She's right, but it’s not my fault. She claims the film is underrated, I felt it was undercooked. Go figure.

Review: Warm Bodies

Year: 2013
Director: Jonathan Levine
Screenplay: Jonathan Levine
Starring: Nicolas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Rob Corddry, John Malkovich

Synopsis is here

A recent episode of the MAMO podcast in a throwaway comment about the box office, placed a simple what if that really struck me until I found myself sat in the fourth row awaiting Warm Bodies to start. In reference to some studios knee jerk reactions to "underwhelming" box office, the hosts posed the simple question: What if the twilight series stopped after one?

The first entry (2008) entered the market and made a respectable chunk of box office change (Over $300 million). But it's the sequels that really opened eyes (and wallets) with the second film, New Moon, making enough money to clear a third world debt. Summit Entertainment had unlocked a box office "secret": teenage girls enjoy going to the movies too (also called the Titanic equation). Since the series ended, it's no surprise that the fantasy female teen market seems to be a big thing these days. It's no surprise that Hollywood harboured it's energies into the likes of The Hunger Games (2012). So when something like Warm Bodies hits the silver screens, it's quite clear that it's not aimed at me at all. Despite this; like the brains that lead Zombie 'R' (an industrious Nicolas Hoult) pleasingly snacks on, Warm Bodies is easily digestible fodder. For an outsider, the film is not as painful as one might think. 

For me, Warm Bodies is mostly due to the charm of Hoult, who throws himself into a role that is tougher than you think at first glance. Inspired by the physical acting of Jonny Depp's Edward Scissorhands, 'R' is a performance that garners expression from the expressionless. Combined with a dry and witty narration from Hoult, 'R' really carries the film, coming off as a undead Wall-E (check his hoarding skills), 'R' is a much more active protagonist than I ever expected, showing more passion than so many recent heroes. Hoult and the screenplay's often humorous observations, do well to paper over the films weaker points. As amusing as Warm Bodies is, it happily trundles along blissfully unaware that the films meet-cute overstays its welcome. So much so that you release that the film lacks not only a second act, but any real lasting conflict. Warm Bodies may not be Shakespeare however, when your film alludes to Romeo and Juliet, it's important to remember that conflict and strive is vital.

When Warm Bodies focuses on anything other than the musings of its main zombie, it beings to suffer. It's leading lady Julie (Teresa Palmer) turns from outgoing battle chick to thankless distressed maiden trophy extraordinary quickly, while the films last act is one brought on with very little build up or risk. Director Jonathan Levine has tread similar teen waters before, but with denser narratives and stronger themes. Due to the films target audience, Warm Bodies does much to sanitise the very fact that it's a romance about dead people. Anyone looking for any real depth in the subject (if you are a little bit odd) would be better off getting hold of the likes of Dellamorte Dellamore (AKA Cemetery Man) or otherwise. 

But if you know of the previously mentioned title, you probably won't be too bothered with Warm Bodies, a film which is much more primed to give the Twilight crowd another supernatural fix of the zombie flavour. For me, I was relatively entertained by the undead antics of Hoult and co. Interestingly; I was told afterwards that the novel is not a humorous one. I must say thank goodness the film injected laughs; otherwise this review would have ended on a much more sour note. 

Review: 2 Days in New York

Year: 2012
Director: Julie Deply
Screenplay: Julie Deply, Alexia Landeau
Starring: Julie Deply, Chris Rock, Albert Deply, Alexia Landeau, Alexandre Nahon, Dylan Baker

Synopsis is here

I wasn't surprised that my girlfriend could not get into Julie Deply's ditzy comedy. After half an hour, she gave up. It's a rom-com truly not for her tastes. A fan of the likes of Serendipity, I was not at all shocked that Deply's messy view on life, love and relationships got her. And not in a good way. Not a negative on my other half at all, but the romantic movies that she enjoys always lean towards the comfortable. Everything slotting into place, like a Disney feature. Deply, star of films such as Before Sunrise/Sunset has a far more disordered approach. All the better, says I. With so many comfortable romantic comedies languishing in the realm of diminishing returns, 2 Days in New York's disorganized yet light hearted resonance is a well needed shot in the arm.

Filmed in a very free wheeling, intimate style with its point of view is squarely set with it's bewildered lead, 2 Day's in New York has a zaniness that I did not expect. However, outlandish moments in the film that would sink other romantic comedies are invigorating here, purely because Delpy's Marion is a more in touch human being than the Heigl-types that have invested the romantic domain. Her oddball point of view is displayed in its purposely erratic editing, we connect to Marion as she tries to connect with everything else. Even when she fakes a brain tumour to try and stabilise an antagonistic encounter. We are with her because we can relate. Relationships of all kinds can be tricky.

The theme of relationships are cemented with the film main motif of art mirroring life. Marion; an artist, is selling her soul as part of an installation. Along side this, are photographs of Marion in past romantic relationships that have not worked in the past. From the start we see how her frustrations stem from making such thing try and work. What have her relationships done to her soul? Even if she doesn't believe in it enough, why is she selling it? Futhermore, who would want it?

The torment continues as Marion's father (Albert Deply) and sister (with boyfriend in tow) appear out of the blue and descend a truckload of dysfunction with them. Her sister, Rose (Landeau), brings with her a sibling rivalry that hasn't evolved since adolescence. Walking around scantly clad to warm the blood of the men around her and boil her sisters. Her father, is a kind but misplaced man, who doesn't fit well with the hectic city life he finds himself in. The less said about Rose's boyfriend (Nahon), the better.

The family's arrival, clash with relationship between Marion and her live in boyfriend, Mingus (Rock). The harmony is destroyed by a barrage of miscommunication through the language barrier, culture and New York's blurred lines of racial identity. Rose's boyfriend, Manu, with his Public Enemy t-shirts and chatter about Salt n Pepa, is bemused at Marion's ability to find the only "brother that doesn't smoke". Manu's observations are often key despite being politically incorrect. Reminding the audience of the typical established roles and traits that Afro Americans are often viewed by.

The film balances smart and insightful relationship issues, with a good humoured comedy of manners. Deply's desperate housewife tries to balance her sexuality, motherhood and bohemian lifestyle along side her quirky family, but it never talks down, or condescends, and much of its humour comes from a believable and grounded place. Such discipline continues with the casting of Chris Rock. Playing against type, Rock is a refreshing as an actual loving partner who doesn't fit into the mainstream, overtly masculine archetypes often portrayed by granite chinned mouth breathers.

The overall tone of the film; for lack of a better word, is playful. And while the final third descends into silliness with a infamous director cropping up and racking up hipster points, even then, it doesn't fully leave the general feel of the film. 2 Days in New York manages to be just as light as so many of its ilk and yet still happens to look at healthy interracial relationships with a keen eye, as well as the often troublesome role of family and how it ebbs and flows. One hopes that their girlfriend gives it another chance.

Review: This Means War

Year: 2012
Director: McG
Screenplay: Timothy Dowling, Simon Kinberg
Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Tom Hardy, Chris Pine

Synopsis is here

This weekend for me has, unfortunately, been a disastrous double bill of recent features that have made me cry out for improvement. The twitterverse, blogosphere and forums keep crying out for original movies to be made and I fully understand where they are coming from. However, when the original films being made are as vapid, predictable and bland as this, then I will happily enjoy the retreads, rehashes and reimaginings. An American remake of a good movie, still often has decent material to back it up. This Means War is the sort of sub-par feature film; that has the writers of HBO laughing their arses off. Please note, they're not laughing because the jokes in this film are any good.

In fact not much of This Means War is any good. It is a film in which one of the CIA agents; FDR (Pine), breaks and enters the love interest, Lauren (Witherspoon) house to gain knowledge of her, obtains said knowledge by staring at it full on in the face, then promptly forgets in pretty much the next scene. Other reviews have mentioned the gross invasion of privacy in such scenes. I'm not particularly worried because it appears that these seemingly young, fit and healthy men have a shocking case of alzheimers.

It's not as if the females get a fairer shake of the rattle. While on a date with FDR, Lauren leaves his living room and Tuck (Hardy) shoots FDR with a tranquillizer dart. FDR pulls the dart out but falls to the sofa asleep. Lauren re-enters the room and is annoyed that her date is asleep because she wanted to get laid. What annoys me is that she can't see the massive dart resting beside her date. It's not hard to see, and a cut away of the dart rolling away would cover the tracks. The film plays out as if all the audience are affected by extreme ADD.

Small yet frustrating factors aside, This Means War fails for me simply because it doesn't know what to do with it's young and talented cast. Witherspoon is an actress with a Meg Ryan cuteness and a huge amount of comic potential that is wasted in scene after scene. Tom Hardy looks like he's waiting for a phone call from Nicolas Winding Refn while Chris Pine has had the charisma vaccumed right out of him. None of the dialogue sparkles for any of them and none of them are given any real time or space to show that every one of these actors can actually be quite amusing.

But then again this is a McG film, therefore all that matters is throwing as much at possible at the screen and hoping it sticks (See either Charlie's Angels film for example). The Micheal Bay-lite director once again gives us an ugly looking film (I have no idea how he gets that hideous colour scheme) that misunderstands overediting with being kinetic. Yet again the modern audience is give action sequences with little to no geography but what does it matter as long as people are seen dying and cars explode. Come to think of it, these CIA agents kill a lot of people needlessly in this sweet, harmless romantic comedy don't they? But then again such things matter in this as much as a coherent screenplay.

I think one of the worse things about This Means War, is the fact that the film constantly references films and filmmakers better than itself and it's creator. Watching McG imitate Martin Scorsese's Copacabana sequence from Goodfellas is an unfortunate tease, reminding me I could have been having more fun at home with something more entertaining.

Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love

Year: 2011
Director: Glenn Ficarra, John Requa
Screenplay: Dan Fogelman
Starring: Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone, Julianne Moore

Synopsis is here

It's a film that has date movie stamped all over it and I'm sure most twenty something males wouldn't even bother catching this flick, even if they are die hard Carell fans. But whether I'm right or wrong with my gross generalisation I have to say that Crazy, Stupid Love is a very warm and fun loving feature that's enjoyable because it feels like the makers of the movie actually watch similar movies and tried to find out what works and what doesn't.

I'm not surprised that as a rom-com it works, as directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa have tried their hand at such endeavours before. Their début feature; I love you Phillip Morris was a film I wasn't completely in love with, but had a decent core relationship at it's core. Crazy, Stupid, Love is equally as smart with it's heart and does well to show these characters as flawed, yet relatable. Where I found Phillip Morris to be pretty bland in terms of how the story plays out, Crazy, Stupid, Love takes a well known track but does well to change the scenery. Where I predicted the end of Phillip Morris from a mile off, with this I still had a good time wondering where these people where going to take me.

It helps that the film spends a fair amount of time with most of it's characters and gives them a certain amount of grounding. As the film switches and swoops between characters with sub-plots at times interconnecting and colliding, we never feel too short changed about someone else, even when the films twists are at their most convoluted. It's unfortunate that twice in the movie however, we get two sequences involving Emma Stone and Julianne Moore that sat awkwardly to me for all the wrong reasons. I won't lie and say that part of this is possibly because I'm a slightly selfish twenty something male who doesn't believe that certain characters honesty at that point shouldn't have amounted to the reactions given. In fact both felt like a screenplay bait and switch in order to forcibly manipulate character affections to the audience. The scene with Stone is particularly cumbersome as the other character involved isn't written as well as he could have been.

However the characters (that matter) are not only well constructed, but also well cast. Carell whom I feel has had a patchy film career, carries the film well and his relationship with Julienne Moore is one you can get behind. You could say Moore is slumming it here considering some of the high class work she is usually known for (I always feel more people have to see Far from Heaven), but she is more than effective here. The film does well to try and make sure that you don't hate either character, although you may finding yourself being less than subjective (very dependant on what I mentioned in the above paragraph). Emma Stone once again shows how much of a likable and charming presence she is one screen while Gosling has a lot of fun as this Hitch-lite character who goes though a slighter more predictable arc than everyone else but still manages to hold his own against Carell at the best of times. The banter between the two (and a great Marisa Tomei in support) bring about the best comic moments.

It is also worth noting that Crazy, Stupid, Love is a film that looks as sharp as one of RyGos' suits. Something which you don't expect from many rom-coms is the filmmakers to really take note at what your taking in visually. The film's not has simple but effective visual motifs to illustrate the distance between characters but it also has a rich colour palette and uses soft focus in a wonderfully dreamy way. Strangely it's use of such a technique, particularly in relation to the sub-plot it appears with, reminds me of a John Hughes feature. I don't even think Hughes ever even used such elements, but the strange mix of the cinematography, the "normal" characters, and the good natured feel of it all for whatever reason invoked such memories.

Much like Extract; Crazy, Stupid, Love works well as a film about communication (or lack there of) and also reminds us that relationships are about not only utilising said communication with the other person, but also allowing ones self to be open to conversation. Simple scenes such as Gosling and Stone staying up all night talking, or the small heartfelt moment involving Carell and Moore outside their sons classroom during parents night are the type of scenes that can sink or swim romantic comedies (some don't even bother with such moments.) but when used well, they make the difference between a screenplay going though the motions, and something worthwhile. Crazy, Stupid, Love feels like a film that spent time revising what went well before to make sure it doesn't get pulled up for lack of interest. Because of this, I invested interest.