|
Review
|
Hollywood, once in a while, makes films that it thinks are
serious and momentous and important. These films are not
usually as serious, momentous, or important as, say,
"Olivier, Olivier", "Kegamusha", or "Karacter", but you can
tell that the Hollywood establishment thinks they are.
These are films like "Schindler's List", "Good Will
Hunting", or even James Brooks other good film, "Broadcast
News". "As Good as it Gets" is as good as it gets for
Hollywood. Melvin Udall is a bitter, repressed, obsessive
compulsive writer living in a New York apartment next to a
gay artist named Simon Bishop. We are introduced to Melvin
as he drops Simon's dog down a garbage chute. Udall hates
just about everybody and openly disparages people by race,
physical defect, or sexual preference. The only person he
seems to like is his usual waitress, Carol Connelly, who
gives as good as she gets. And here you have all the
traditional elements of the usual Hollywood comedy /weeper,
except that Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks are not around. But here
you would be wrong. James Brooks (who also produces "The
Simpsons" for TV) is a superb writer and he has an eye and
ear for distinctive voices and traits, and he puts
sufficient spin on the plot to keep it downright
interesting, at least, for an hour and a half. Of course
Melvin's heart softens, and he helps out Carol, and, after
his neighbor is attacked by burglars, he takes care of the
dog and likes it. And of course Carol is somewhat attracted
to him. But Brooks keeps it hair-raising and, to his
credit, there are moments when you really believe it's not
going to happen: they're not going to get together. But
they, you remember, this is a Hollywood film. If only John
Sayles had finished it for Brooks, it might actually have
deserved a few awards. Instead, as usual, the film sells
itself out and goes for the weepy, semi-comic, touching
finale. Is it worth seeing? Yeah, it is. The first half
is very good, very tight, and there are moments of genuine
epiphany. The only question in my mind is why does the
film bother to start out that way? Who is reponsible for
the genuine originality and spirit of the first hour?
Where did that person go when the last half hour was
filmed? Why, why, why?
|
