| Overall Grade: |
B- |
|
| Story: |
B |
|
|
| Acting: |
B+ |
|
|
| Direction: |
B- |
|
|
| Visuals: |
B- |
|
|
Dreaming in Metaphors
by Eric (movies profile)
Sep 7, 2007
8
of
11 people found this review helpful
There should be a sign in every writer's office, I don't if this pertains to them or not. It should read: There's No Ego In Satire. The reason behind this is because the result is catastrophic. Take American Dreamz for example: This is a film that has it's ducks lined up, but is too afraid to pull the trigger.
American Dreamz follows four characters: The newly re-elected President (Dennis Quaid), who decided to read a newspaper for a change on the day after his victory (and can't stop reading them for weeks after). You have Martin Tweed (Hugh Grant), the host of reality show American Dreamz (Not to be confused with terrible television show without the "z") that showcases fresh singers in a glorified kareoke manner. And then you have two contestants on the show, perky Sally (Mandy Moore) from Ohio and Omer (Sam Golzari) from the Middle East. Omer is the cousin of a terrorist, tried to be one himself except that he's clumsey and a lover of showtunes (it's kinda hard to rally anti-American sentiment when someone's singing Oklahoma). Sally is a sneaky and ambitious woman who reminds Martin of himself (in an evil yet fond way). When Omer accidently gets on the show, his contacts finally find him and give him his mission: The President will be a guest host on the show's season finale and they want to blow him up.
This is a perfect idea for satire, and with pieces set up perfectly, nothing should go wrong, but it does. The problem is that some of the actors and even director Paul Weitz go soft in places where it needed to dig in. It shows ambition, then loses it. But that's not to say that there aren't some great scenes. One that stays in my mind is the terrorist becoming a critic of the performances, even to the point where they even vote on the show.
Also, the film seems to have ideas about patriotism and popularity, but doesn't fully look into it. Satire takes time to dive into things. This one seemed more interested into getting to the third act, allowing for the first two acts to seem ill-prepared. On a side note: What's with all the winking guestures to poop? We have towns and nicknames that deal with some sort of excrement
Acting-wise, both Grant and Quaid seem to be the only two actors who gave in completely into their roles. Of course, they have real-life counterparts that they can model from. With Grant particularly getting into the deeper portions of Martin's frustration with fellow human beings, this shows how invaluable he is as an actor. Also worthy of mention is Willem Defoe as the president's chief of staff, who plays this as a man who sees himself in the same way a trainer looks at a dog.
I remember talking about In Good Company only a year and a half ago stating that the Weitz Brothers seem to be on the verge of greatness. I'm now starting to wonder if perhaps this will be the best it gets. I really don't think so, but they'll really need to work on things if they intend to be better than what they are.
All in all, this is not a bad movie, but a one that gets red in the cheeks when it shouldn't. But then, that's why satire is so difficult, and it doesn't play to the crowd. |
My Public Profile 
