BEFORE: This has become sort of a "Lie, Cheat & Steal" weekend - tonight is the cheating part (or is it the stealing part?). Martin Starr, of all people, carries over from last night's film. He played a waiter in "The Invention of Lying", and has a small role here as a convenience store clerk.
THE PLOT: A middle-class man turns to a life of crime in order to finance his niece's first year at Harvard University.
AFTER: See, crime doesn't pay. At least, it's not supposed to - but in this film, it might if the main characters weren't so inept at robbery. The premise here is that John Plummer (Jason Lee, last seen in "Chasing Amy") has finally saved enough money to get married and buy a house, but he's reminded of a promise that he made years ago, to pay for his niece's college tuition. Both the house and the tuition cost $30,000 - and that's what he's got, so he's got to make a choice.
Or he could have an open, honest conversation with either his girlfriend or his sister (or both) - but that doesn't ever seem to be an option. Because if he did that, we wouldn't see all the madcap robbery attempts that seem to be his best solution. But each attempt to steal just gets him in more trouble.
I think what bothers me most here is the math - does he need to put ALL of his $30,000 toward the house? What about a down payment of $10,000? He's got a job, so can't he get a mortgage? Is $30,000 the down payment plus wedding costs, or is it the entire cost of the house?
His niece says that she's saved money from her jobs, plus she's getting financial aid - so is the $30,000 she needs going toward her first year at Harvard, or her fourth? The film never makes this clear - does Harvard need all four years tuition up front or something? Or can he split his money and give Harvard say, $15,000 now, and find a way to save more money over the next three years? See, already by asking these questions, I've spent more time thinking about it than this film's scriptwriter, which is just sad to say.
I can't help it - I'm a problem-solver by nature, and there are about 100 ways I'd try to solve this problem before I resorted to "Hey, let's rob that guy's house." I do realize that for some people it may not be a long leap to a life of crime, but still... if you want me to respect this character, let's see a better thought process.
There are a lot of other characters roaming about - a detective, his girlfriend's father, and a criminal that the main characters knew in grade school - but their plotlines are mostly loose ends that the film hopes will tie together at the end, and when they don't, they're kind of forced together haphazardly.
And when the main character finally does have an honest conversation with his girlfriend about the money situation, does she offer to put her dreams on hold? Nope, because turning on her father and robbing him is SO much easier. Things all do work out in the end, but the way they do is very questionable - sends a rather strange message to the kids.
A film like this should come with the same warning label as the "Jackass" films do - kids, do not try these stunts at home.
Also starring Tom Green, Leslie Mann (last seen in "Funny People"), Dennis Farina (last seen in "Manhunter"), John C. McGinley (last seen in "Born of the Fourth of July"), Megan Mullally (last seen in "Fame"), Richard Jenkins (last seen in "Wolf"), Seymour Cassel (last seen in "Honeymoon in Vegas"), and Chris Penn (last seen in "All the Right Moves").
RATING: 3 out of 10 ski masks
Among Roger Ebert's many, many gifts to the ongoing group conversation about film: he labeled this sort of thing as "The Idiot Plot." "A plot in which every problem would be solved almost immediately if not for the fact that all of these characters are complete idiots."
ReplyDelete