
I’m not sure how to describe this film, except maybe to say imagine if Logan’s Run was written by Woody Allen and directed by Terry Gilliam (or maybe Wes Anderson). Colin Farrell, who I normally don’t think much of, gives a nice, understated performance here as David, a newly-single man from a mildly Orwellian future, who is shipped off to stay at a hotel (Room 101!) where denizens are all single, and must find a mate within 45 days or be turned into an animal of their choosing (in David’s case, a lobster) and released into the forest. He’s got nerdy glasses and a paunch, and (perhaps because he’s relying less on his looks) I don’t think I’ve seen him better.
In addition, there are some interesting performances from others, including Rachel Weisz, and John C. Reilly, who plays a lisping resident who has trouble refraining from chronically masturbating in his room, which is frowned upon by the management. (“Maids” are provided daily for the residents’ sexual needs.)
The film has a unique style that is wickedly, darkly comic, and the dialogue is delivered nearly devoid of emotion, which contributes more so to the dystopian mood (and humor). What seems to be an otherwise lovely holiday at the hotel, for example, is punctuated with odd bits, such as ridiculous pantomime shows for the residents, advocating the benefits of having a partner, or slow motion scenes where the current residents “hunt,” with tranquilizer guns, those who have gone past the 45-day limit, thereby earning extra time for themselves.
I should mention that midway through the film, there is an event that takes place which greatly changes its tone. The comedy becomes even darker, perhaps dark enough to wonder if it’s even comedy anymore. I can’t tell you what it is without spoiling the film, but you’ll know it when you see it.
I always seem to have a somewhat divisive film in my best of the year list, and this one may be that title. It’s slow, and that was my one big complaint—I’m not sure it had to be as long as it was. But I think a lot of the complaints I noticed on the IMDB boards (where it’s being hotly debated) were of the “it’s boring” category, with some people clearly not getting it. One poster asked “is the acting just really bad, or is it supposed to be that way?” If you have to ask that question, you shouldn’t be watching this particular movie.
In any tale of a dystopian future, the conflict is usually the context for the lesson offered. In Logan’s Run, it’s our society’s obsession with youth and beauty. Here, it’s our need to validate people through romantic relationships (the deadpan dialogue can be seen as a polar opposite to the normally syrupy lines offered up in your standard Hollywood romance), and a skewering of ideals such as having to have so much in common with each other to have a “real” relationship. (One resident secretly bashes himself in the face repeatedly to have something in common with a girl who has chronic nosebleeds.) Of course, in the second half of the film, we find out that the other extreme isn’t all that desirable, either. By the way, if you haven’t seen Logan’s Run yet, you should, before Hollywood makes its inevitable, shitty remake starring Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis.
This film isn’t going to be for everyone, so I’ll apologize in advance to any of you who end up hating it. However, I thought this was one of the most original and wryly funny films I’ve seen in a long time. There’s really nothing like it. Be warned, though—it’s not the type of humor you’ll find in, say, a Judd Apatow film. It’s much more absurdist. I’m trying to think of a good comparison, but the best I can come up with is something like Scorsese’s After Hours, but even that’s not quite it. If you see it, and think of a better comparison, let me know.
IMDB has it as a 7.1, which is somewhat remarkable, because there seemed to be a lot of “I hated it” posts there. I’m good with that score, although if it was a little tighter in terms of time and pacing, I’d bump it to an even 8. (The hotel doesn’t sell shoes in half sizes.) (running time 1:59)