New on DVD Aug 11 2008 @ 09:30 am
REVIEW: Smart People
Directed By: Noam Murro
Written By: Mark Jude Poirier
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Sarah Jessica Parker, Thomas Haden Church, Ellen Page
Running Time: 95 minutes
Rated R for language, brief teen drug and alcohol use, and for some sexuality
This review was originally published April 14th, 2008.
I usually avoid reading others’ reviews of a film before I write my own—y’know, don’t want to “bias” myself and whatnot. (After all, what’s the point of having nine gazillion film critics in the world if we all think the same? Wait, you mean there never was a point? Oh, man…) I had a sneaking suspicion about Smart People, though, and I wanted to confirm it, so I scanned the reviews listed at Metacritic (which, if you don’t know, is kind of a Rotten Tomatoes for people that have lives). It wasn’t as bad as I expected—a solid 57/100—but I wasn’t too far off. Like all semi-arty films that get released in the spring, Smart People has been drubbed by the critics. Oh, well.
I'm an English prof. See my poetry book?
Now, to be fair, there’s a good reason this sort of drubbing occurs, but there’s also a bad reason. The good reason is that studios invariably save up all their good movies throughout the year, and then cram the release dates for all of them into December—because, as we all know, Oscar has an incredibly short memory. (Winning Oscars is important—where would Orson Welles and Charlie Chaplin be without all their “Best Picture”s?—oh wait.) This means that spring movies usually suck. The bad reason is that critics expect everything released this time of year to suck, and get ready to blast the movies before they actually see them (see: Fool’s Gold). More often than not, that means that when a nice surprise like Smart People actually shows up in the spring, the critics (who are still cranky from working overtime on the Oscars) tear it to shreds anyway, and nobody goes to see it. C’est la vie, I suppose. Perhaps it’ll find an audience on DVD.
Now, before anyone accuses me of liking too many movies (cough-my wife-cough), let me be forthright in saying that Smart People is not a “great” film. It is a mere “good” film (this is why it gets only three-and-a-half stars, and not five). It’s not the Towering Artistic Achievement (or whatever) that There Will Be Blood is. But it doesn’t have to be. Not every movie will be. Get over it. I simply don’t have the time or energy to argue over whether Citizen Kane or Tokyo Story is the Best Movie Ever Made. Who cares? They’re both great films. (If I had to pick, I’d choose Tokyo Story, but would it really change your life if I convinced you that it was better?)
In any case, even if we agree that Smart People isn’t the “best” film, I think it’s clear that it’s a pretty good first entry from director Noam Murro, who thus far has only directed commercials. It accomplishes quite a bit more than it should, thanks to a smarter-than-average script from (also first-time writer) Mark Jude Poirier and an excellent cast (which is particularly strong in the supporting roles).
You were funnier when you were pregnant.
The story is concerned primarily with Lawrence Wetherhold (Dennis Quaid), a widowed English professor at Carnegie Mellon University, who wakes up in a hospital bed after suffering a trauma-induced seizure. The doctor (Sarah Jessica Parker) taking care of him turns out to be a former student who—to his surprise and delight—seems interested in getting to know him better; unfortunately, she also tells him the seizure renders his driver’s license invalid for the next six months. On the bright side, his deadbeat adopted brother whom he hates (Thomas Haden Church, Wings, Sideways) has decided to crash at his house. Joy! No need to hire a chauffer! Meanwhile, his uptight daughter Vanessa (Ellen Page) is driving him nuts obsessing over her SATs and he’s virtually ignoring his son James (Ashton Holmes), who’s a student at his own university.
I’m going to assume we can all guess where this ends up (people come to terms with things, learn valuable lessons, grow as individuals, etc.)—but to my knowledge, an unpredictable romantic comedy has never, ever been made—so why let that get you down? What’s particularly surprising about this one, however, is what a small role the romantic storyline actually plays. Smart People is concerned primarily with its other relationships: Vanessa and her uncle; James and Vanessa; etc. What’s particularly touching is watching Lawrence learn to respect his brother, and—later—to actually like him. Call it homoerotic if you must, but it’s undeniably refreshing to see a romantic comedy that examines all aspects of human relationships instead of just one.
Church really impresses here, creating a real character out of one that would be merely another pot-smoking mullethead in lesser hands. Page also does quite well—it’ll take her a while to top her performance in Juno, but that’s nothing to hold against her. Quaid does a convincing job of playing the stuffy professor—making the stereotypes work for him, instead of succumbing to them. Even Parker manages to get laughs, despite spending much of the film delivering the same line (which I won’t spoil here).
Caption this photo for fabulous prizes!
Smart People finishes with a somewhat surprising and disarming ending, which I’m sure will draw flack from the exact same people who complain that the film is too predictable. Well, you can’t win ‘em all—but if you enjoy romantic comedies or messy, complex dramas, I shouldn’t have to tell you that Smart People is for you. If you still haven’t seen Juno, rent that; but if you have, and you want to go see a movie, this is a pretty solid choice.
on Apr 15 2008 @ 8:49 am 1. Daniel said …
Good review, but sorry, I have to take a stand against this one, Luke. We totally agree on the performances of Parker and Haden Church, but I was really unimpressed with the script. There were a couple of good lines scattered throughout, but there was little meaning and no chemistry between Quaid and Parker, in my opinion. It’s definitely not even close to the worst romantic comedy I’ve seen, but I did find it a bit of a waste of time. Not like you’re gushing over it or anything, but I just thought I’d throw my thoughts in.
on Apr 15 2008 @ 9:27 am 2. Evan Derrick said …
Ok, here’s my caption for the photo:
“I am the walrus, I AM THE WALRUS!….wait, was that with my inside voice or my out loud one?”
So, what fabulous prize do I win, Luke?
on Apr 15 2008 @ 11:59 am 3. Fletch said …
As bad as the poster, title and timing of this movie were, I’m with Luke, and I enjoyed the insight on reviewing). It won’t cure cancer or inspire 1000s of children to become filmmakers, but it’s a good movie, pretty funny at times, “real” throughout, and the performances all worked for me (save for perhaps SJP, but I’ll save the reasoning for my own review).
Yea, I screwed up, too. I try to avoid reading others’ reviews as well.
on Apr 15 2008 @ 2:02 pm 4. Julia Harrington said …
You do like too many movies. I thought film critics were supposed to be, you know, critical.
Anyway, I hope I’ve sufficiently proved that I do read your movie reviews.
on Apr 16 2008 @ 9:09 am 5. Luke Harrington said …
Well…so far, Evan, you’ve won by default.
What fabulous prize would you like?
on Apr 16 2008 @ 9:16 am 6. Evan Derrick said …
Cupcakes. Preferably with sprinkles and smiley faces on them.
on Aug 11 2008 @ 10:30 am 7. Sam Juliano said …
Luke, if it means anything, I rate TOKYO STORY as one of the three or four greatest films! LOL.
Good review here of a film I haven’t rushed to see, but I do like Thomas Hayden Church.
on Aug 12 2008 @ 8:49 pm 8. Dave said …
I’m sorry to say I didn’t care for this one.
on Aug 23 2008 @ 5:46 pm 9. Amye Sutton said …
I would like to take the opportunity to say that Ellen Page is amazing. That’s all there is to it.
on Aug 23 2008 @ 6:56 pm 10. Evan Derrick said …
Thanks for dropping by, Amye. Have you seen Hard Candy, Page’s first serious role? It is, by far, my favorite performance by her, even above Juno.
on Aug 23 2008 @ 7:42 pm 11. Phillip Johnston said …
I just re-watched Hard Candy a few days ago. Brilliant stuff.
on Sep 01 2008 @ 5:12 am 12. Banker said …
Luke, you seem smart and no one would deny that you obviously love movies. In fact you do a pretty good job dissecting them in the text part of the review. But give us some love when it comes to the actually star-ranking you give to movies. You’ve got five of them to work with, use the whole spectrum.
Its ok for you to like a movie and still think it’s not that great. As my art professor used to say “you can’t polish a turd.” Every movie (almost) has something good in it, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good movie.
on Sep 02 2008 @ 10:59 am 13. Luke Harrington said …
Hey Banker, thanks for your thoughts. As I’ve stated here and elsewhere, though, I’m really not interested in the usual critic “games” like assembling a personal “top 100″ or arguing over which film is better than which. You can add star ratings to that list as well.
To me, star ratings are something of a necessary evil, and nothing more. To assume that the worth of a film can be summed up in a simple quantity of stars is didactic at worst, and simply arrogant at best. The real value of a star rating, as far as I’m concerned is to get people to read the review. In that respect, mine seem to be working pretty well.
I don’t think it’s my job to “grade” the film, or — worse — to try to ascertain its place in some sort of mythical pantheon of cinema; to attempt either is to place myself on a pedestal that I’m not comfortable mounting, and even less eager to claim.
With that said, I would much rather use the stars to reflect my experience of the film; in other words, I tend to give five stars to films I both love and admire, four stars to films I admire but don’t love (or vice-versa), three stars to films I merely enjoy, two stars to films I dislike (but could understand someone else liking), one star to films I hate, and no stars to films I find worthless and offensive.
I have, in my seven-or-eight months writing for MZ, gone as low as half a star (see review here), and I felt that this particular film richly deserved it. And, of course, there’s the rub: if I start wantonly handing out low scores, they’ll have lost much of their meaning when a film truly deserves to be panned.
I hope that makes sense, and feel free to disagree.
I know we’ve had this conversation (or one a lot like it) here at MZ before, but I’d like to hear the thoughts of whoever’s reading.
on Nov 05 2008 @ 2:43 am 14. Sal said …
Daniel, I WAS impressed with the script. Felt like a character-rich novel, not your typical Hollywood fare. It meandered a little, like life does, and the characters were all so well developed and defined and original. Each of them surprised me. Oscar-worthy script. Mark my words. - Sal