When Joe Wright’s “The Soloist” was shifted from prime Oscar territory last autumn to a considerably more low-profile 2009 slot, many presumed that the film was something of an artistic disappointment. However, word also went round that the move was a sympathetic one, aimed to place less pressure on a film that, despite the talent involved, was more crowdpleaser than prestige item.
Meanwhile, two diametrically opposed trade reviews do very little to clear up the picture ahead of the film’s release next week. (They appeared a few days ago, but escaped my notice until now.) Todd McCarthy’s Variety pan confirms the suspicions of the sceptics, actually suggesting that the film appears uncomfortably caught between awards-baiting and more populist urges:
Neither rarefied art film nor widely accessible inspirational drama, “The Soloist” falls between the cracks both creatively and commercially … Joe Wright’s first American feature has moments of power and imagination, but the overworked style and heavy socially conscious bent exude an off-putting sense of self-importance, making for a picture that’s more of a chore than a pleasure to sit through.
Charismatic and dynamic as they’ve been on any number of previous occasions, both Foxx and Downey seem to labor here as they grapple with roles viewers will find difficulty warming to. Downey, in particular, fails to find either outer charm or inner soul in Steve Lopez.
The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt, however, sings a very different tune, describing the film as “excellent, if flawed.” His disagreement is most pronounced on the matter of the film’s lead performances, going so far as to suggest that they remain strong awards contenders:
Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx are on fire in the lead roles: They’re both charismatic as hell without sacrificing any of the emotional honesty necessary for you to believe that these movie stars are a scruffy reporter and a mentally ill musician … True, Academy members tend to remember only the last three months of a year when voting, but these performances are extraordinary enough that the memory should not fade by fall.
Honeycutt’s review does end on a pointed journalism-related note, as he suggests that “The Soloist” will be “the last movie ever to focus on a newspaper columnist,” before melancholically bemoaning the supplanting of columnists like Downey’s Steve Lopez character by blog culture. As Kris mused the other day regarding the critical reception for “State of Play,” you have to wonder if Honeycutt’s loyalty to his profession played any role in his review.
For my part, I’m more interested in Wright’s next project, but that’s me.
Comments
13 responses to “Was it worth the wait?”
I’m not a fan of Downey Jr or Foxx but I think Wright is a very talented director. He’s the only reason I will watch this film.
This always looked shit to me.
Did you see In The Loop yet Guy? Caught it today and thought it terrific. I actually rolled my eyes when I read you Guardian gives 5 star review post since I thought the trailer was awful, but how wrong I was.
I laughed out loud frequently. The acting is first rate and the screenplay excellent and this is from someone who has never seen The Thick of It. Could have done without Steve Coogan, who was distracting and miscast but that’s a minor quibble with a wonderful film.
That’s really great to hear, Adam. Haven’t got round to it yet — very full weekend — but fully intend to in the coming week.
I saw the trailer for this 8 times in the month of February when I was catching up on Oscar nominated movies. By the 8th time, I was ready to run up to the projection booth and burn the trailer negative.
The shift in the release date has me concerned plus I feel like I saw the whole damn movie in the trailer already. If the critics are pretty friendly to it, I’ll see it in theaters. If not, I’ll wait until DVD.
Ever since I saw the trailer first time, I was expecting these kinda of reviews. Ah well. I was hoping that this would have been an excellent opportunity for Joe Wright to try and show his talent besides costume period, but people have remarked he wasn’t right for the job.
Jamie Foxx is my least favorite oscar winner of the decade, and i’ve been skeptical of this project since day 1.
Foxx skepticism is all well and good, but who isn’t a fan of Downey? Seriously.
I don’t care for Downey, actually.
Todd McCarthy’s review seems a little confusing to me.He states these reasons but gives it a fresh tomato on the rotten tomato web site.From what he wrote you would have thought that he gave this movie a rotten tomato.But then again,what differentiates a fresh tomato from a rotten one? Oh well.I’ll just see it myself and come to my own conclusion.
Personally, I place more stock in words than tomatoes. But that’s me.
And besides, it’s the site that gives out the tomatoes, not the critics.
Again words,tomatoes I’ll go by what I see because I’ve heard everything.From a critic’s comparison to “One Flew Over A Cuckoo’s Nest” to another writing that it was a total mess.So Guy’s question mark after “Was it worth the wait” sums it all up.This Friday will tale.
Again words,tomatoes I’ll go by what I see because I’ve heard everything.From a critic’s comparison to “One Flew Over A Cuckoo’s Nest” to another writing that it was a total mess.So Guy’s question mark after “Was it worth the wait” sums it all up.This Friday will tell.