the screening of be cool, part 1
Elmore Leonard writes fun books. The ones I've read have been about tough-guy characters in tense and humorous situations, often punctuated by bullets. I'm sure that's not all he's written about, but hey, I wouldn't even pretend I've read a fraction of the forty-plus books he has written, many of which have been turned into great, good and sometimes awful films.
Be Cool is a sequel of sorts to Get Shorty, which was filmed by Barry Sonnenfeld and starred John Travolta as Chili Palmer, a so-cool-he's-tough (or so-tough-he's-cool) collector for the mob who decides that the movie business in Hollywood is a much more enjoyable racket, while maintaining a certain level of the backstabbing, murder and intimidation he is used to. Chili glides through the story completely unrattled by the goings-on of various shady producers, conflicted bodyguards, skeevy mob stooges and the elite, mostly unaware hierarchy of Hollywood royalty who see him as a guy who knows how to command a room, usually with nothing more than a hard stare and the velvet inflections of his voice. At least, this is how Travolta manifests the character in Get Shorty, and it works like a dream. Sonnenfeld's film glides cooly along like Chili's stride, and every scene is pretty damn funny, no matter the gravity of the situation.
Overall, the film is a real joy in a low-key way that makes it almost forgettable.
That is, until you get the chance to compare it to it's sequel, Be Cool. Be Cool fails on two completely different levels: as a film, it is flat, frequently unfunny, and never maintains its characters' rhythms the way its predecessor did. But more on that later. Worse, it seems a complete negative of the book it is based on. I am halfway through Be Cool at this time, and have now seen the film (again, wait for it...). For pulpy, pop-culture noir, the book is richer, allowing some nice motivations that don't translate well into two hours of film. But more importantly, the film seems to invert all the major characters either physically, or with regard to their roles in the story. Halfway through, and I can tell you that:
-the character of Linda Moon, who seems to be falling for Chili, is a white chick, and sounds like Uma Thurman as written by QT. In the film, Uma Thurman plays a record executive's widow who falls for Chili, while Linda Moon is a black chick played by Christina Milian, more the object of the story than a fully-realized lead character.
-the character of Raji is a black man, and he may not be the wisest fellow, but he isn't a moron. In the film, Vince Vaughan plays Raji as a white guy who acts black, and is more buffoon than threat.
-the character of Eliot, Raji's (conflicted) bodyguard, is a large "wall" of a Samoan with shoulder-length black hair. In the film he is played by The Rock as a tall, muscular man with a neat blaxploitation fro.
-Linda Moon's former bandmates are brought back onto the scene to re-form her original band. In the film, Linda Moon is a solo performer who apparently never had a band.
-the police detective Darryl Holmes seems to be a thoughtful recurring character so far in the book. Cops are almost an afterthought in the film.
This is just some of what tweaks you when you see a film that is so opposite what you're reading, and let's suppose for a moment that I hadn't been reading Be Cool. I would still find the movie lacking because it has a rep to maintain, that coolness and persistent humor that made Get Shorty a really delightful fish out of water story, while neatly deflating all the sharks that fish dives in with. Forgive the sea analogies, but consider this: Be Cool is a film that can't do as it says. It strains too hard and ultimately finishes feeling under-cooked and over-seasoned. Or over-cooked and under-seasoned. Or maybe I should go back to sea anemonies...analogies. Sorry.
On the plus side, some of Leonard's crisper dialogue does get placed verbatim into the film, though it sounds both great and out-of-place. Uma Thurman is frequently gorgeous. And The Rock is the only performer who owns scenes in the film. He's not Olivier, but his comic timing and sheer zeal are very appealing. Eliot takes center stage in the most inspired scene of the film. Suffice it to say: you won't be able to keep a straight face the next time some too-cool film student decides to perform his favorite monologue for you.
But when there's so little else going on in a movie, what's there to stop a minor role from stealing the show?
Enough about material comparisons. Now, about that screening...
Be Cool is a sequel of sorts to Get Shorty, which was filmed by Barry Sonnenfeld and starred John Travolta as Chili Palmer, a so-cool-he's-tough (or so-tough-he's-cool) collector for the mob who decides that the movie business in Hollywood is a much more enjoyable racket, while maintaining a certain level of the backstabbing, murder and intimidation he is used to. Chili glides through the story completely unrattled by the goings-on of various shady producers, conflicted bodyguards, skeevy mob stooges and the elite, mostly unaware hierarchy of Hollywood royalty who see him as a guy who knows how to command a room, usually with nothing more than a hard stare and the velvet inflections of his voice. At least, this is how Travolta manifests the character in Get Shorty, and it works like a dream. Sonnenfeld's film glides cooly along like Chili's stride, and every scene is pretty damn funny, no matter the gravity of the situation.
Overall, the film is a real joy in a low-key way that makes it almost forgettable.
That is, until you get the chance to compare it to it's sequel, Be Cool. Be Cool fails on two completely different levels: as a film, it is flat, frequently unfunny, and never maintains its characters' rhythms the way its predecessor did. But more on that later. Worse, it seems a complete negative of the book it is based on. I am halfway through Be Cool at this time, and have now seen the film (again, wait for it...). For pulpy, pop-culture noir, the book is richer, allowing some nice motivations that don't translate well into two hours of film. But more importantly, the film seems to invert all the major characters either physically, or with regard to their roles in the story. Halfway through, and I can tell you that:
-the character of Linda Moon, who seems to be falling for Chili, is a white chick, and sounds like Uma Thurman as written by QT. In the film, Uma Thurman plays a record executive's widow who falls for Chili, while Linda Moon is a black chick played by Christina Milian, more the object of the story than a fully-realized lead character.
-the character of Raji is a black man, and he may not be the wisest fellow, but he isn't a moron. In the film, Vince Vaughan plays Raji as a white guy who acts black, and is more buffoon than threat.
-the character of Eliot, Raji's (conflicted) bodyguard, is a large "wall" of a Samoan with shoulder-length black hair. In the film he is played by The Rock as a tall, muscular man with a neat blaxploitation fro.
-Linda Moon's former bandmates are brought back onto the scene to re-form her original band. In the film, Linda Moon is a solo performer who apparently never had a band.
-the police detective Darryl Holmes seems to be a thoughtful recurring character so far in the book. Cops are almost an afterthought in the film.
This is just some of what tweaks you when you see a film that is so opposite what you're reading, and let's suppose for a moment that I hadn't been reading Be Cool. I would still find the movie lacking because it has a rep to maintain, that coolness and persistent humor that made Get Shorty a really delightful fish out of water story, while neatly deflating all the sharks that fish dives in with. Forgive the sea analogies, but consider this: Be Cool is a film that can't do as it says. It strains too hard and ultimately finishes feeling under-cooked and over-seasoned. Or over-cooked and under-seasoned. Or maybe I should go back to sea anemonies...analogies. Sorry.
On the plus side, some of Leonard's crisper dialogue does get placed verbatim into the film, though it sounds both great and out-of-place. Uma Thurman is frequently gorgeous. And The Rock is the only performer who owns scenes in the film. He's not Olivier, but his comic timing and sheer zeal are very appealing. Eliot takes center stage in the most inspired scene of the film. Suffice it to say: you won't be able to keep a straight face the next time some too-cool film student decides to perform his favorite monologue for you.
But when there's so little else going on in a movie, what's there to stop a minor role from stealing the show?
Enough about material comparisons. Now, about that screening...
posted by scn at 4:44 PM
<< Home