I'd also like to take this opportunity to explain my grading a little bit. To some, especially those who equate number ratings to grades (ie 9/10 = A, 8/10 = B, etc) a 5/10 may sound like a failing grade. However, I would prefer to consider it perfectly average. Anything above is above average, and anything below is below average (obviously). So a rating of 8/10 is actually very good, and a 5 is not terrible. Anyway, on to Win Win:
Expected grade: 5/10
Actual grade: 6/10
(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)
This film was a very by-the-numbers indie-style movie. It followed a very typical indie formula pretty much note for note. It was about a middle-aged, shlubby guy (Mike) going through a crisis who commits a morally dubious act. He has a supportive but more morally-centered wife, and a pair of doofy friends who are there to provide perfectly-timed comedic one-liners. Mike is introduced to a young, monosyllabic, slightly awkward but secretly talented teenager with a troubled childhood. He subsequently takes this boy under his wing and they both grow as people through their interactions, although there is temporary angst when the kid discovers Mike's morally dubious act. But by the end of the film, all is forgiven in a resolution that is so quick and tidy it strains credulity -- and everyone is happy.
The one thing that set this movie slightly above every other movie like it was the performances. They were all stellar. Amy Ryan is particularly believable as the morally-centered, exasperated at times, seemingly-tough-but-actually-loving-and-sweet-underneath wife. Bobby Cannavale and George Bluth (sorry, I mean Jeffrey Tambor) are effectively funny as Mike's two friends. Bobby Cannavale is especially hysterical in a role that shows his character reliving his high school days through his job as Mike's overzealous assistant wrestling coach. And Alex Shaffer, who plays young Kyle, manages to bring surprising depth to his role, which could have gone monotone in the hands of a less capable actor. I constantly felt his attempts to connect with the other characters, finding new parents in Mike and Jackie, spending time with a grandfather he never knew, and meeting new friends at school.
Surprisingly, it is actually Paul Giamatti who has the least impressive role in the film, but I believe it's due more to the writing than the actual performance. It is such a typical indie, mid-life crisis role that it honestly could have been portrayed interchangeably by him, Philip Seymour Hoffman or William H Macy with basically equal results. All that is required is a man in his 40s, going to seed, trying to do his best with less-than-ideal circumstances. Being Paul Giamatti, he obviously does a great job with it, but the things his character does are so unsurprising that he wasn't really given an opportunity to shine, which is a shame.
This is all not to say that I didn't enjoy myself -- I did. I thought it was cute, funny and worth two hours in the theatre (but I also got to see it for free). But I also felt like I'd seen most of it before. What saved it was the performances and the occasionally surprising sense of humor. When asked by Mike how he always wins his wrestling matches, Kyle responds that he simply does "whatever the f*** it takes" not to lose. That becomes the mantra of the characters in the film. I just wish it had also been the mantra of the screenwriter. He could have used a little more chutzpah to shake up the formula and give his formidable cast a plot more worthy of their talents.
Has anybody else seen this movie? If you have, am I way off? If so, why? I suspect many people will think I am because I heard it did well at Sundance, so I'd genuinely like to hear someone else's opinion on this film. Let me know in the comments!
No comments:
Post a Comment