This was not a bad movie, but I found it to be intellectually dishonest (for lack of a better term), never coming close to reaching the heights it claimed.
Typically, I will admire a film for its ambition. Even if it falls short in an attempt to tell a unique story or to take an in depth look at a complex issue from a fresh perspective, I'll give it points for taking the risk and attempting something new. The problem with "The Fault in Our Stars" is that it doesn't do this. Sure, it starts off with a grandiose claim that it is somehow different, that it is realistic when other films are not, but it then proceeds to dip its bucket into the same well of clichés and tropes as those films it just criticized. Excessively witty lead characters who always have something smart and clever to say--check! Sudden appearance of a too good to be true love interest who is *gasp* actually true--check! Over the top romantic gestures and declarations of love--check! No effort whatsoever is made to be particularly original--they figure that if they tell you how wonderful and unique their film is at the outset, you'll just take their word for it.
On the surface there's nothing wrong with following this pattern. These tricks have been used by countless romance movies in the past because they work. They may not provide an especially deep experience, but they make for an entertaining couple of hours in the cinema. The problem is the pretentiousness with which this film makes the claim--but no effort--to be something more. Giving the characters cancer, which allows for scripted relapses and other moments designed to milk the maximum tear-jerkiness out of each scene does not make for a more realistic film when you're still set on adhering to all the clichés you can think of--in fact, it opens the door to the use of even more clichés.
The only original aspect of this movie was that it flipped genders, having the manic pixie dream girl be a manic pixie dream guy. Sadly, this only called even more attention to what an unrealistic character the main love interest is. He's practically out of a Harlequin romance novel: the wonderful, selfless guy who shows up in the heroine's life for the sole purpose of "saving" her. It's almost offensive. In this regard, the film is actually less realistic than most of the films it claims to be superior to.
The film is competently made. It features some good performances. Were it not for its baseless claims of relevance, it would have been decent, if forgettable. But the ostentatiousness of those claims put a bad taste in my mouth. If the film had lived up to them, I would have congratulated it. If it had even tried to live up to them, it would have had my admiration. But it didn't. So it doesn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment