Some readers may not remember this, but I swear it is true. There was a time when Robert De Niro acted in masterpieces. When you heard De Niro was going to be in a movie, you could almost count on it being entertaining and worth while.
But Hollywood being an ageist industry suddenly had no use for actors like Mr. De Niro or Al Pacino. You have to be able to be a superhero to act in movies today and who wants to see De Niro and tights wearing a cape? So actors like De Niro turned to comedy and poke fun at their persona. He started acting in films which were quite honestly beneath him. Some of them may have been pleasant diversions but would De Niro have acted in films such as "Godsend", "Hide and Seek", "Meet the Parents", "Analyze This" and/or "That" say 20 years ago? Part of me doubts it.
"What Just Happened" took a lot of abuse from the critics and subsequently from the public. It wasn't a box-office champion and I knew no one who looked forward to the film with great anticipation. The critics said the film played as more sitcom material. Both Roger Ebert and A.O. Scott wondered why the film didn't give us more inside dirt. Ebert compared it to "The Player" and said "What Just Happened" fails in comparison. Scott wrote that "What Just Happened" "serves up far too many warmed-over morsels of humor."
I'm not going to defend "What Just Happened" as a great movie. But a light-hearted comedy? Yeah, sure. This leads to the problem I have with critics and the public. Every so often to seems to me that critics latch on to a movie and criticized it just for the sake of criticizing it and then the public reads the reviews and merely mirror their opinions. Examples would be "Town & Country", "Swimfan", and "The Brown Bunny". All were said to be the worst film of all time. This is one of the reasons I don't read reviews prior to a movie. You have no idea how many times I'll hear someone talk to me about a movie, explaining why they did or didn't like it. Then I go home and start to read a few reviews. Everything the person told me was taken from the critics.
The other problem I have with critics is they always seem to "excuse" certain mindless movies but bash other which shouldn't be treated so harshly. Why did Ebert recommend "Tomb Raider" as just a silly exercise but write negative things about this film? Why couldn't "What Just Happened" be a silly exercise?
Robert De Niro plays Ben, a Hollywood producer going through one of the toughest moments of his career. The director of his latest project, Jeremy Brunell (Michael Wincott) has just had an awful test public screening for his latest movie "Fiercely". From the little bit we see of the movie within the movie "Fiercely" remind me of a Guy Richie shoot out movie. By the end of the film a dog is shot in the head. The audience reacts in horror, thus the cause for the terrible public comments. The studio head, Lou (Catherine Keener) wants the ending changed immediately before the film premiers at the Cannes Film Festival. Jeremy however, being the artist that he is, refuses to touch his film and change anything. It will take away the "edge" he tried for.
Another problem for Ben is Bruce Willis (playing himself) has put on some weight and grown a beard. The studio wants Willis to lose some weight and shave the beard. Willis refuses to shave the beard. He doesn't understand why audiences would care about his beard. If Willis doesn't shave the beard the studio will shelf the picture.
But Ben has personal problems as well. He has been married and divorced two times with children from both marriages. Though he claims to still have feelings for his second wife, Kelly (Robin Wright Penn). In between business deals he tries to win her heart back.
"What Just Happened" was directed by Barry Levinson. Levinson has some good films as part of his credits. The Oscar winning "Best Picture", "Rain Man", as well as "Avalon" and "Bugsy". He and De Niro worked together on the political satire "Wag the Dog". He has though had some low points. Watch Robin Williams in "Toys" as a sad example. But Levinson can still sometimes bring the funny. One of his earliest writing jobs was for Carol Burnett which lead to him being part of Mel Brooks' writing team. He worked with Brooks on "High Anxiety" and "Silent Movie". He even had a cameo in "High Anxiety" as a deranged bell-boy.
Depending on what you expect from Levinson "What Just Happened" is worthy of him. I found the film enjoyable. Is it realistic? No. I wasn't expecting it to be. And I wasn't expecting it to be dark or give us dirt on Hollywood. I wasn't expecting life lessons either. I have no clue why anyone would expect such things from this movie. Many of the critics complained about the absence of such traits.
All I expected was a funny movie.
"What Just Happened" creates a lot of funny situations. They may not be laugh-out-loud moments. I don't recall holding my sides in fits of laughter. But there are a lot of smile moments. There is a lot of material which will make you smirk. There are a few clever lines. "What Just Happened" isn't a great comedy but it is easy on the eyes.
As for De Niro, this isn't the comeback role we may have been expecting but I would say it might be the best film he has been in, in the last 10 years or so. The only thing which comes close is "The Good Sheppard". Everything else, I think De Niro should have been slightly embarrassed to be. "Godsend", "Meet the Parents", "Hide and Seek". These films don't deserve De Niro. But "What Just Happened" is not an embarrassment. De Niro doesn't have to be ashamed of this movie.
I bet some readers will say I'm setting the bar too low. I'm being a bit too forgiving and kind towards this film. First, that should be your first sign that you are an elitist and cannot enjoy typical Hollywood entertainment. Secondly, if my review seems too kind that's not a reflection on me but the movie business and our society. The industry has lowered the standard to match the public's sensibility. I merely realize this is as good as Hollywood gets.
Posts
