Mar 12, 2012
I knew you couldn't kill Meryl Streep! Man, she's in her 60s... in this film; and I don't mean during the filming of the movie, I mean the '70s, during which this film opens up taking place in, and now that she's in her 90s, she still in better shape than me. No, Meryl Streep isn't old, or at least not by acting standards, because nothing can kill an actor or actress, except maybe cancer, heart attacks and drug overdoses. I don't know about y'all, but when Michael Gough went, I think he may have been on a little somethin', somethin' and that's what did him in. Hey, it's to be expected, because you shouldn't be doing drugs at all (kids), let alone when you're 94; so Meryl Streep, if you're on something, put down the bong if you want to make it another year, to 136. No, she's not that old, but Bruce Willis might be, he just shaves his head so much now-a-days it's hard to figure out what age he is. Well, his real name is Walter, so he's got to be about 71 or something, or he might be now, because this film takes so long to get anywhere, I probably spent the last decade-and-a-half watching it.
Actually, now that I think about it, everyone's complaining about this film taking a long time to get somewhere, but really, I fell that, in all honesty, it actually never goes anywhere. No, the film gets to its point, yet, the fact of the matter is that it limps there, slowly dragging along with very limited intrigue, substance and depth. It's not a terribly boring film, but it is slow, both in pacing and in atmosphere, and as it drifts along, looking for its point - such as it is -, I dare you to not check your watch, if not fall out of the film completely from time to time. Of course, if the lack of depth isn't enough to knock you out of the film, "every" last, single lead is very unlikable in a very over-the-top way, and sure, they try to redeem them in some regards, particularly through humor, but more often than not, it's hard to find yourself truly invested in our leads. Now, the film isn't bad, yet it's so very much one of "those" '90s fillers on the filmographies on directorial and acting talents, and should, for all extents and purposes, be a throw-away, mediocre piece on the filmographies of Streep, Willis, Hawn and, of course, Bob Zemeckis. However, this is above your average throw-away '90s piece on a director's resume, because through all of its missteps and conventions, it wins you over more often than not. It's not a knockout, yet neither is it a mediocre piece, and at the end of the day, there's plenty in this to remember, particularly, of course, the visual effects.
Bob Zemeckis has always had a taste for sharp visual effects and that all but especially includes the subtler kinds that don't blast in your face and serve the film is a dazzling and effective manner. Well, ladies and gentlemen, here is absolutely no different, and while this film isn't knocking out organic effect after organic effect like in "Roger Rabbit" or even popping out as many as Zemeckis' later-to-arrive masterpiece "Forrest Gump", yet when the effects to come into play, they're borderline, if not completely seamless, which isn't to say that they don't leave you impressed from an entertainment standpoint, as well as an aesthetic standpoint. Another Zemeckis trademark - and one more commonly seen in this film - that really livens things up is, of course, the sweeping, diving and deeply immersive camerawork that pulls you into this world in a lively fashion, yet doesn't overbear you. His and Martin Donovan's screenplay is certainly improvable, yet Zemeckis still holds your interest through all of the low spots - of which, there are plenty -, for he manages to make up for the mediocrity with his classic taste in pure, engaging style. Still, he's not the only one who keeps you going, because no matter how unlikable the characters are "on paper", it's hard to be totally uninterested in them, because the performers behind them are inexplicably excellent. Well, actually, I don't how inexplicable that really is, because if Meryl Streep's in the cast, you're bound to get some really good acting somewhere, and that's something that's not said a whole lot about Walte-I mean Bruce Willis, but only because he's not one to frequently show off that he is a genuinely excellent performer, as well. Goldie Hawn is heavily advertised, as well she should, because she is a pretty big role in the film and she plays it well enough whenever she graces the screen, yet at the end of the day, this is Streep's and Willis' show, and whether they're charming you or organically incorporating some heavy dark work that you don't see coming - let alone executed as well as this -, our leads pull you in and win you over, regardless of the unlikability of their characters on paper.
Overall, on paper, the film should be, not necessarily a failure, but a mediocre number on Robert Zemeckis' filmography, what with the conventional, slow and wandering storyline that focuses on across-the-board unlikable leads, yet what more than saves the film is, if nothing else, Zemeckis' typically fabulous visual style, as well a triad of sharp lead performances - particularly those by Meryl Streep and Bruce Willis -, leaving "Death Becomes Her" to be an ultimately watchable farce that's reasonably enjoyable.
2.5/5 - Fair
Verified