Wow, September is a lame month for movies. Summer movies have come and gone, and all the filmmakers are waiting for the holiday season to release the good stuff. The jerks. Also, the fact that I just used the phrase "holiday season" is wildly concerning. Aside from that, it looks like somebody felt that it was a decently sufficient time to release Searching, which actually seems appropriate if you ask me. September is a month without a lot of movies of which to compete, so the box office is essentially open to whatever half-decent mainstream flick rises from the dust. Indeed, it looks like Searching is exactly what we need: a movie that's just entertaining and interesting enough to get us out of our homes.
Searching is a film with an extremely conventional plot that is executed through interestingly unconventional means. The last thing I thought we would have needed was another father-searches-for-daughter drama flick. Even though it's seemingly a discount Taken because their plots are similar, their implementations alter greatly. Searching lacks the fighting/killing sequences, but it's also far smarter than any hokum starring Liam Neeson. We can all be grateful that John Cho doesn't play another cliché ex-cop brought back from his premature retirement for vengeance.
The filming style is unique, and aids to the realism of the viewing experience. The film's entirety is essentially shot from the first-person perspective, and minimally pans away from the protagonist's laptop. In other words, the audience sees almost everything the way he sees it. This isn't an entirely new concept, but it's one of the first times that it has been done with such consistency and commitment. The creativity was fun, but it also became tiresome. This filming style came with several consequences; namely, the restraints on usable angles, thus affecting the cinematography in a negative way. The question remains as to whether uniqueness overpowers conventional impressiveness. Many people believe so, but I am not one of them.
Additionally, the introductory expositional scene was one of the most thought-provoking and emotionally connecting intros that I have seen in a long time. How good is it? It's comparable to the introductory montage of Up; that's how good it is.
Many great films have the protagonist in essentially every scene, which I don't have a problem with in a broad sense. 127 Hours, Buried, All Is Lost, Cast Away, and Life of Pi rarely deviate from the star, yet refrain from complacency. This style has obvious difficulties, because it requires incredibly difficult acting methods. If you're not going to deviate from your star, that star better show up. I didn't have any problems with John Cho's performance, and he had many great scenes. The problem with him being in every scene, though, is that he wasn't good enough to be memorable. Likewise, none of the characters were memorable.
Like I said earlier, something that was great about the film was the realism of it. The actions, methods, and situations of all the characters were completely believable, and it was consistently interesting without having to be consistently eventful. The plot remained intelligent, concise, and sensible.
Until the last 15 minutes, anyway.
These kinds of plots leave a "big reveal" to be desired (allegedly), and filmmakers are often desperate to deliver them. Many believe it to be true that "subverting expectations" deems a movie to be intelligent (I'm looking at you Last Jedi fans), which is verifiably false. However, a climax doesn't need a "big reveal" to be thrilling. Unfortunately, however, Searching thought differently, and sacrificed realism for a shock factor. It is true that I wouldn't have been able to anticipate the ending, but it's the product of a lesser writing team.
Part of the issue was that the wrap-up was unnecessarily fast and far too easy. Wrapping up the plot with a pretty bow within the last ten minutes--especially when nothing was close to being resolved a mere two minutes earlier--is poor, poor pacing. Furthermore, it completely undermines the intelligent realism that had been so well established during the prior 90 minutes.
Obviously I had issues with how it ended, but that shouldn't take away from how well-done the rest of the film is. Searching is good; i's well-done, but it's not fantastic. I think that the main reason it's so revered right now is because September is such a dull time-of-year for movies. But if you're itching to go to the theater, it's worth the trip. In other words, it's worth a 77%, and being
The filming style is unique, and aids to the realism of the viewing experience. The film's entirety is essentially shot from the first-person perspective, and minimally pans away from the protagonist's laptop. In other words, the audience sees almost everything the way he sees it. This isn't an entirely new concept, but it's one of the first times that it has been done with such consistency and commitment. The creativity was fun, but it also became tiresome. This filming style came with several consequences; namely, the restraints on usable angles, thus affecting the cinematography in a negative way. The question remains as to whether uniqueness overpowers conventional impressiveness. Many people believe so, but I am not one of them.
Additionally, the introductory expositional scene was one of the most thought-provoking and emotionally connecting intros that I have seen in a long time. How good is it? It's comparable to the introductory montage of Up; that's how good it is.
Many great films have the protagonist in essentially every scene, which I don't have a problem with in a broad sense. 127 Hours, Buried, All Is Lost, Cast Away, and Life of Pi rarely deviate from the star, yet refrain from complacency. This style has obvious difficulties, because it requires incredibly difficult acting methods. If you're not going to deviate from your star, that star better show up. I didn't have any problems with John Cho's performance, and he had many great scenes. The problem with him being in every scene, though, is that he wasn't good enough to be memorable. Likewise, none of the characters were memorable.
Like I said earlier, something that was great about the film was the realism of it. The actions, methods, and situations of all the characters were completely believable, and it was consistently interesting without having to be consistently eventful. The plot remained intelligent, concise, and sensible.
Until the last 15 minutes, anyway.
These kinds of plots leave a "big reveal" to be desired (allegedly), and filmmakers are often desperate to deliver them. Many believe it to be true that "subverting expectations" deems a movie to be intelligent (I'm looking at you Last Jedi fans), which is verifiably false. However, a climax doesn't need a "big reveal" to be thrilling. Unfortunately, however, Searching thought differently, and sacrificed realism for a shock factor. It is true that I wouldn't have been able to anticipate the ending, but it's the product of a lesser writing team.
Part of the issue was that the wrap-up was unnecessarily fast and far too easy. Wrapping up the plot with a pretty bow within the last ten minutes--especially when nothing was close to being resolved a mere two minutes earlier--is poor, poor pacing. Furthermore, it completely undermines the intelligent realism that had been so well established during the prior 90 minutes.
Obviously I had issues with how it ended, but that shouldn't take away from how well-done the rest of the film is. Searching is good; i's well-done, but it's not fantastic. I think that the main reason it's so revered right now is because September is such a dull time-of-year for movies. But if you're itching to go to the theater, it's worth the trip. In other words, it's worth a 77%, and being
Theater Worthy.
If nothing else, it's way better than Crazy Rich Asians.
Comments
Post a Comment