There's a difference between the opinion of some random Internet nobody and a professional reviewer from a major media outlet (he writes unironically). Or at least there should be. Case in point, this movie. According to respected long-time Rolling Stone reviewer Peter Travers, Cold Souls will cause you to "laugh till it hurts." Really? Wow, sounds painful, but worth it. But, wait, I could use a second opinion. What does the Old Grey Lady herself have to say? That Cold Souls is "flat-out funny"? Hey, if you can't trust The New York Times, who can you trust?
And really, what's the point of movie reviews, of any form of criticism, if you can't trust them? If you can't use them as a guide? Cold Souls was not funny. Some of Paul Giamatti's reactions are comical--ok, funny--but I didn't even get the sense that the film was trying to be comedic. That's the thing that's throwing me. It's definitely surreal--Giamatti as himself having his soul removed because it was hurting his acting--but in a slow existential European way. Basically, Being John Malkovich not written by Charlie Kaufman, which makes it decidedly not Being John Malkovich. French (see!) writer/director Sophie Barthes has made an interesting movie and I'd like to see what she does next. But if she wanted to not make a comedy, why not just cast Jim Carrey and avoid all the confusion.
Like I said, the movie is interesting. The extracted souls take all different shapes and sizes. Giamatti's looks like a chick pea. Obvious question: what would yours look like?
ReplyDeletea ravioli
ReplyDeleteYeah, but would it be a cheese-filled one or maybe sausage? Is your soul full of meat?
ReplyDeleteMine would be see-through, like a flavorless gummy bear.