Are you making a movie ABOUT an idiot or FOR one?

The last movie I saw was Our Idiot Brother, simply because it was recommended to me. But I think if it didn’t have Paul Rudd or I wasn’t debating my better conscience about re-watching the Tree of Life, I would have skipped it altogether. Basically the movie did nothing for me, I’m actually not even sure if it’s supposed to be a comedy because it didn’t particularly feel like a comedy aside from a few moments where you’re just thinking, “oh come on! That doesn’t happen in the real world” but it also wasn’t a dramedy. What it feels like was that you had this view of what life was like for Paul Rudd’s character over the course of several weeks except that some of the events just seemed to be a little absurd. But that’s just it, I watched it because I didn’t feel like being confused by the Tree of Life but I was left feeling more confused than ever because it didn’t leave me any impression whatsoever. I wasn’t underwhelmed, nor was I overwhelmed, is it possible to just be whelmed?

Maybe the problem doesn’t lie with the movie but with me. Maybe now I just have these ridiculously high expectations when watching a movie whereas such expectations will only ruin your experience especially with indie comedies like this. I wonder if I’d watched Little Miss Sunshine only recently, I would like it at all. No. Of course I’d still love it, the writing’s brilliant!

I’m going to actually talk about the movie now. Throughout the film I kept having to restrain myself from drawing parallels to Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, because the titular character and Paul Rudd’s Ned had so much in common that if someone were to try to convince me otherwise, I’d probably assume they’re idiots themselves. But the story was nothing like the Idiot, there were no other parallels besides the naiveté and Christ-like characteristics that the two protagonists share, and what a relief that was! I know I’m probably spoiling the ending for you lot so if you want to be spared, I think it wise to skip to my next paragraph. When Willie Nelson ended up missing in the epilogue of the movie I had this horrible thought in my head: holy shitsnacks what if Willie Nelson, the character that Paul Rudd loves with all his heart was actually Nastasia Filipovna? And I was just waiting for the camera to pan out to show a dead dog, butchered by Rogozin, who in this movie would be Paul Rudd’s bitch girlfriend who’s kept the dog the whole time, and Rudd would drop to the ground, scream bloody murder and fall into madness. Then the credits will roll and I will have lost my fucking mind. NOT AGAIN!!!! But that didn't happen, because there was a happy ending which I frankly didn't understand the purpose of. It turned out that the dog had simply run away and was found playfully running around with another female dog whose name turned out to be Dolly Parton. And of course her owner is this gorgeous lady who seems to be into the creepy looking dude Rudd portrayed, but at that point I was already too busy being whelmed by the movie to care about the disappointment of an ending that was.

I’m not saying I regretted seeing it because it wasn’t that bad. It just wasn’t that good either. It’s a nice movie to watch on a lazy Sunday afternoon where you just want to lie on the couch, watching easy going movies to pass the time like the Breakfast Club or Bridesmaids (oh my god, so I didn't love that movie fucking sue me!) Or maybe it just didn’t give me that sparkle it should have because I was familiar with the oh frabjous day, everyone is kind, benefit of the doubt, spin which was so primary to the premise of the plot that it just didn’t leave a lasting impression to my noggin. I don’t know, it almost feels like the movie is guilt tripping me into giving it the benefit of the doubt. Like why should I be so critical of it? Why can’t I just appreciate it for what it is? To which I suppose the only appropriate response is, well played Hollywood… Well played.