Okay, not a new release (2004), but I've only just got round to watching it, so bear with me! Where do I begin? Well, let's start with that Director's Cut subtitle. This film is 7 minutes longer than the theatrical edition, and has an ending which is more in keeping with the generally bleak tone of the film. The original cut had a variant on the age old "happily ever after with a twist" style ending that these thought provoking thrillers get when initial screenings are given to focus groups. And generally they leave you feeling short changed - you come away from the film thinking of ways that it would have been more satisfying. The Director's Cut edition of this film satisfies that need. It changes the story of the film dramatically at the end, adds in a couple of extra scenes elsewhere, and puts a different spin on the backstory of the parents of the main character. It is this last change that also goes some way to sorting out the reactions of the professional critics. With a Rotten Tomatoes score of just 34%, this film scores worse than most of those dreary, predictable rom-coms out there. However, when you look at the scores left behind by people who went to see the film despite the overwhelmingly negative press, you see scores of 80+% (or four out of five stars etc.). Why?
A lot of it has to do with the actors. At the time of the original theatrical release of this film, Ashton Kutcher was big tabloid news due to his relationship with ex-wife of Bruce Willis, Demi Moore. He was the also the lead in Dude, Where's My Car? as well as irritating a lot of celebrities state-side in Punk'd (or as we know it, Noel Edmond's Gotcha!). One can't help but feel that if maybe a Tobey Maguire, or an Elijah Wood, or even a Tom Welling had been in this picture instead, the reviews would have been more favourable. Which is a shame, because Kutcher imbues the character of Evan Treborn with a vulnerability that works very well, and certainly proves he has acting chops to spare. Unfortunately it's a case of celebrity culture 1 - acting ability 0 in the eyes of many critics.
The film starts proper with a 7 year old Evan experiencing blackouts as a child - in school, during a disturbing child porn movie being filmed by the father of a friend, in the kitchen, and so on. Also, a few years later in his early teens, watching a prank go disasterously wrong, and in a subsequent incident. Throughout this he is accompanied by three friends: romantic interest Kayleigh (played as an adult by Amy Smart), her psycho-in-waiting brother Tommy, and overweight and nervous Lenny. A lot of the drama in these incidents is traced back to Kayleigh and Tommy's divorced paedophile father (played by Eric Stoltz) and provide the impetus for many of the later twists and turns in the movie. Throughout this time, these blackouts have caused concern for his mother, and at the behest of a psychologist he begins to keep a journal of every day to help him through the memory blocks. Later on, while studying psychology at college, he finds out that by reading the entries pertaining to days when he had a blackout, he can re-enter those missing minutes and change the way events turned out.
And this is where the titular effect comes into play - in essence, one of the cornerstones of chaos theory (as seen in popular science, at least) is the old adage that a butterfly could flap its' wings, and halfway round the world, due to the incalculable interactions of that small movement of air with the atmosphere as a whole, a tornado could form. In other words, small changes can have big and unforeseen effects. As a premise for a film it is most definitely high concept, thought provoking, and requires more than one viewing to truly appreciate the complexities it introduces to the film - here's an example (small spoiler alert!): one of the first examples of blackouts is in a school, where he doesn't recall having drawn a horrific picture of a double murder of two skin-headed neo-Nazi types, with him standing over the bodies (the teacher asked them to draw what they wanted to be when they grew up). Later on in the film, as a result of a change he made during a blackout, he ends up in prison, with his journals stolen and held by a group of homosexual neo-Nazi inmates who call themselves the Brotherhood. He hatches a plan to try and prove himself to his cell mate, by jumping back to that time and hurting himself to produce scars in the present. However, he is in the memory long enough to draw the picture (which even Roger Ebert noted was "rather good for a 7 year old" without realising the connection!). And when he gets back he has proved himself and his cell mate helps him attack those inmates... you see? The picture was what future Evan wanted to do! And the blackouts are not as such - they are in fact times when future Evan will have access to his past to change events.
The problem is that these changes always seem to introduce undesired effects - prison, Kayleigh's life spiralling out of control, Evan losing both arms and use of his legs, being sectioned, and so on. In addition, each change has to be made further and further back in the past as the changing events wipe out journal entries as the related blackouts may not have happened! In addition to that, whenever large changes occur, he is overcome by pain and spasms as his memories effectively get another 20 years of alternate history dumped into them each time, and the cumulative effect is damaging, both physically and mentally. And on top of that there is a sub-plot about his father, which is far more important and central to the overall story in the Director's Cut version.
So there's a lot to think about. And a bit like Total Recall, it takes some thinking about to sort it out in your head. And like that film, it also has some uncomfortable scenes - the aforementioned paedophilia, violence, prostitution, harrowing images of mental and physical illness, and more than its fair share of death. The last few minutes of this particular version will also potentially upset or anger a number of people who have had a particular sort of family tragedy in their lives, so it's not a film for the faint hearted. But it is a lot better than the "professionals" gave it credit for (but then they write this stuff for a living - so what do I know? ;) )
Overall: 8/10 (6.5/10 for the theatrical and VCD versions)
No comments:
Post a Comment