Post by Casablanca on Aug 29, 2009 1:41:14 GMT -5
"Dick Tracy" (Xplay)
[NOTE: This review was done a week ago or so to a pre-screening. I am only releasing it now]
“Oh boy” Tess says. “Oh boy” is right; this is a film which isn’t merely satisfied with capturing its era, recreating the setting and the trends, but instead it goes the full monty, to say, and parodies not only itself but the fine details involved in it, exploiting every nuance possible that has a capability to be ridiculed, and then puts a red suit and orange hair on it when its all said and done. It’s a goof of a screenplay, a movie standing on it’s head, and after the film is over, croaking it’s last hammy croak, you can’t help but both admit, shamefully, that you were entertained, and also, think awestruck at how far this film dove into itself, and how little saving it there was. It isn’t a great film, nor is it a “quite good” film, but it’s a fun film for the viewer who has everything and needs a nice kick back from deep thinking, or thinking, at all, for that matter.
The story is recycled cop-movie, superhero-movie hooey you’ve no doubt heard before, told over and over wherever there is a man with a gun and a witty one liner. That’s no difference here. What is different, however, is how ridiculously absurd this movie makes the whole event, taking the cliché’s and flaw’s of the genre and circling around them. You’ve got the usually, ceaselessly idiotic mobster who tags along with the ones with a plan, a commissioner who is pretty straight to the fact, Dick Tracy himself, who acts a like a vigilante, bringing justice at every stop, even going so far as to comment on how if he was witness to a child pick pocketing, he would “have got him”. Of course, the latter is used as an ironic drama story about Tess, Dick’s all-she-wants-is-for-Dick-to-be-there-for-her girlfriend who wants, yes, a child. Cheesy, but this actually brings us to one of the film’s few genuinely sweet subplots, Dick saving a child from abuse and bringing him home to stay with him and Tess.
The dialogue is as bad as you can get. It’s hogwash cheese before its run through the grinder. But who doesn’t like a bit of cheese now and then? Especially when it is as blaringly self-insulting as it is here. It practically wears a dunce sign willingly. Some of it is witty, granted, but for the most part, it relies on placing of you in a time and era so silly and so old fashioned that wearing a purple striped suit with tails would be for the evening gentleman. The only time it really has any dramatic build is, as stated above, with Tess. She wants to go out and eat after he has been gone so much from her, and he, spending the whole dinner glancing at the clock, accepts, distracted from her the whole meal. He’s a man who sure like’s his work, or sure can’t get enough of it. And at the end, with the narration, it’s almost hard to believe that he is willing to agree to the lifestyle he tells us he has, and still will manage to fight crime. But, this is symbolic of what the film wants; they expect us to believe this, and so it is.
The characters themselves are what carry the story, since with any other roles you’d have yourself some dull, flat tripe here. The colorful personalities add to it all and give it, so to speak, a face-lift. It’s all fake, but it’s better then being flat. While most of the mobsters come off as indistinctive, I did see a nice amount of variation between the voices of Dick and company, and that was something I didn’t really expect. In this element, the script has one or two good things, personalities that really shine at different times; the two best examples (and two of the film’s good scenes) being the opening, which is actually pretty good, and the dinner scene with Dick/Tess mentioned earlier. If anything else, the moment is a nice indicator of having each character assume a different and unique voice.
Will people enjoy this film? Do I recommend it? I do the latter, surely, for one, because people need a variety in their stomach, and some trashy fun in their diets. For the former, however, I highly doubt it; I didn’t even, surely not as much as xplay’s other films. It’s “The Raven” with none of the drama, and while it keeps that really delightful, very enduring feel to it, it doesn’t hold up enough based on that fact alone. A film can’t be balanced on a pin, it takes a lot to have it work, and this comes close to working, it just goes a little too over the top sometimes, but it is also these moments which make it immensely fun? So, how and why would any review this conventionally, since you are just bound to contradict yourself.
Those expecting a crime story, one of mystery and suspense will be left half-baked, and still frozen on the middle, but actually better left off then those expecting anything else. It does tell a complete crime story, and an interesting enough one. I was pleased with that aspect more so then the attempts at real drama. While the execution was chalky, the idea itself was a nice one, and an honorable one, albeit stereotypical “noir”, an admirable attempt.
Overall, the film is bound to be one of the most confusing of the recent times. People will have fun with it, but not know why. They will be attracted to moments, and look back on this bad script and question themselves. That’s what I felt. It’s a film that polarizes the viewer and polarizes itself, taking itself like a real film one moment, and then reminding itself it’s a virtual spoof the next. But, if you don’t mind joining “Big Boy Caprice”, “Tess Trueheart”, “Little Face” and “Flattop”, then sit back, turn your brain off, and let the film ride past as easy as they come. Then go to the review board and write a negative review.
