Seldom have I seen a movie that I found so enjoyable, and so awful at the same time. I've watched it twice, with the same reaction both times.
It's a fun romp to go through, with good pacing, a great look, some really funny situations, and stand-out dialogue ("I'm just a faggot with a gun who needs an axe" - if I'm remembering that exactly - has got to be one of the greatest lines ever!)
And it has some terrific performances: Font was solid fine and it was wonderful to see Braga again, even if far too briefly. Jennifer Coolidge blew me away - she was as funny as ever, but speaking in her normal voice (which I don't think I've ever heard before). The Latin actors were excellent (Brzezicki and Dukah were way easy on the eye, the former delivering maybe the standout performance in the movie). And Sabato was downright hilarious; his five minutes in the film were the comedy icing on the cake. (To all you snobby denigrators here, he's not just a Calvin Kline mannequin, he's got over 40 film and TV credits to his name, going back to the late '80s - long before he was ever pegged to be an underwear model!)
But, as for the awful part ... the whole centre of the movie: David Sutcliffe and his character, Dean ... it just drove me nuts. I don't know whether to blame Sutcliffe for the completely vapid, cellophane nature of Dean's character, since the part was so poorly written and, it seems, mis-directed. I've enjoyed Sutcliffe a lot in other performances; he's always seemed to come across with the goods, and he is definitely charming and funny here too. But, oy! He/Dean is so uncommitted, so uninvolved in his feelings, so unmotivated, it's impossible to figure out what he's doing in Buenos Aires in the first place. He seems so superficial that it's impossible to believe he's heartbroken in the least - just p.o.'d mainly. And to think that he'd travel thousands of miles (and spend thousands of dollars) to gain "closure" over an affair that he would probably get over - and get a replacement for - in a week if he stayed in LA, just doesn't make any sense. (One thing Sutcliffe must squarely take the blame for, though, is his utter lack of believability as a gay character. I'm not talking about anything to do with masculinity or femininity. An actor can successfully play a gay man without any outward signs of effeminacy - which, thankfully, Sutcliffe did - but there still have to be signs of a sensibility that straight men just don't exhibit.)
Compounding the "awful" part of the movie is, of course, the groundlessness of the entire plot and the gaping holes in credibility. Comedy, or drama, there still has to be some sort of motivation for outrageous acts committed by seemingly normal people. Here, there was none. First, as I mentioned, you don't buy the premise that Dean would travel all the way to Argentina in the first place (since his motivation was never depicted as an attempt to reunite with, or rekindle his relationship with, his lover at any cost). Second, why would Pablo ever attempt to have Dean killed? For what? The slight embarrassment he might have been caused? Pablo was marrying for money, with a woman who was already fully aware of his sexual preference and promiscuity (a "marriage of convention" - another great movie line), so unconcerned with his reputation that he openly seduced a waiter at his own wedding reception. And, finally, are we really supposed to believe that a man is so crazed by the rather mundane fact that his lover didn't really love him all that much to begin with (or anymore, at least) that he would be driven to chop off the man's head? I mean, really!
The fun payoff, with the fake-suicided brother and his sister enjoying the rewards of their scheme to get rid of Pablo for his money, fails to fully satisfy simply because you can't believe they would ever get the idea that they had enough ammunition to goad Dean into killing Pablo at all and, therefore, ever succeed with their plan. (Even if Pablo really was behind the intention to have Dean assassinated - which the script makes it seem he was (even though it would have made more sense had Sofia and Marcos made up the whole thing) - Dean didn't seem all that fazed by it anyway; it appeared to be the furthest thing from his mind by the time he raised that machete.)
The fatal flaw is the lack of a pivotal plot mechanism: a motive! I kept waiting for the "plot" to show up: the intrigue, the political machinations that would have made Dean's presence a serious threat, a reason to kill him, and a reason to make him feel so betrayed and/or misused that he would have had a true reason to seek revenge against Pablo - like Pablo was secretly an important government official, where a sexual scandal could mean his ruin. So I kept waiting, and waiting ... and nothing of any significance ever showed up to explain why anybody did anything they did in the entire movie.
And what about that wine cooler? I love sick humour as much as anyone, but are we really supposed to buy the idea that someone would whack off his lover's head in Argentina, stuff it in a cooler, then have it Fed-Ex'd to LA and delivered to his agent's office? And for what godforsaken reason? I don't even want to think about what Dean wanted to keep that head for!
So, there you go - I'm altogether ambivalent about this movie. I loved watching it, and will probably love watching it again, but have the feeling I'm always going to hate myself for it.
It's a fun romp to go through, with good pacing, a great look, some really funny situations, and stand-out dialogue ("I'm just a faggot with a gun who needs an axe" - if I'm remembering that exactly - has got to be one of the greatest lines ever!)
And it has some terrific performances: Font was solid fine and it was wonderful to see Braga again, even if far too briefly. Jennifer Coolidge blew me away - she was as funny as ever, but speaking in her normal voice (which I don't think I've ever heard before). The Latin actors were excellent (Brzezicki and Dukah were way easy on the eye, the former delivering maybe the standout performance in the movie). And Sabato was downright hilarious; his five minutes in the film were the comedy icing on the cake. (To all you snobby denigrators here, he's not just a Calvin Kline mannequin, he's got over 40 film and TV credits to his name, going back to the late '80s - long before he was ever pegged to be an underwear model!)
But, as for the awful part ... the whole centre of the movie: David Sutcliffe and his character, Dean ... it just drove me nuts. I don't know whether to blame Sutcliffe for the completely vapid, cellophane nature of Dean's character, since the part was so poorly written and, it seems, mis-directed. I've enjoyed Sutcliffe a lot in other performances; he's always seemed to come across with the goods, and he is definitely charming and funny here too. But, oy! He/Dean is so uncommitted, so uninvolved in his feelings, so unmotivated, it's impossible to figure out what he's doing in Buenos Aires in the first place. He seems so superficial that it's impossible to believe he's heartbroken in the least - just p.o.'d mainly. And to think that he'd travel thousands of miles (and spend thousands of dollars) to gain "closure" over an affair that he would probably get over - and get a replacement for - in a week if he stayed in LA, just doesn't make any sense. (One thing Sutcliffe must squarely take the blame for, though, is his utter lack of believability as a gay character. I'm not talking about anything to do with masculinity or femininity. An actor can successfully play a gay man without any outward signs of effeminacy - which, thankfully, Sutcliffe did - but there still have to be signs of a sensibility that straight men just don't exhibit.)
Compounding the "awful" part of the movie is, of course, the groundlessness of the entire plot and the gaping holes in credibility. Comedy, or drama, there still has to be some sort of motivation for outrageous acts committed by seemingly normal people. Here, there was none. First, as I mentioned, you don't buy the premise that Dean would travel all the way to Argentina in the first place (since his motivation was never depicted as an attempt to reunite with, or rekindle his relationship with, his lover at any cost). Second, why would Pablo ever attempt to have Dean killed? For what? The slight embarrassment he might have been caused? Pablo was marrying for money, with a woman who was already fully aware of his sexual preference and promiscuity (a "marriage of convention" - another great movie line), so unconcerned with his reputation that he openly seduced a waiter at his own wedding reception. And, finally, are we really supposed to believe that a man is so crazed by the rather mundane fact that his lover didn't really love him all that much to begin with (or anymore, at least) that he would be driven to chop off the man's head? I mean, really!
The fun payoff, with the fake-suicided brother and his sister enjoying the rewards of their scheme to get rid of Pablo for his money, fails to fully satisfy simply because you can't believe they would ever get the idea that they had enough ammunition to goad Dean into killing Pablo at all and, therefore, ever succeed with their plan. (Even if Pablo really was behind the intention to have Dean assassinated - which the script makes it seem he was (even though it would have made more sense had Sofia and Marcos made up the whole thing) - Dean didn't seem all that fazed by it anyway; it appeared to be the furthest thing from his mind by the time he raised that machete.)
The fatal flaw is the lack of a pivotal plot mechanism: a motive! I kept waiting for the "plot" to show up: the intrigue, the political machinations that would have made Dean's presence a serious threat, a reason to kill him, and a reason to make him feel so betrayed and/or misused that he would have had a true reason to seek revenge against Pablo - like Pablo was secretly an important government official, where a sexual scandal could mean his ruin. So I kept waiting, and waiting ... and nothing of any significance ever showed up to explain why anybody did anything they did in the entire movie.
And what about that wine cooler? I love sick humour as much as anyone, but are we really supposed to buy the idea that someone would whack off his lover's head in Argentina, stuff it in a cooler, then have it Fed-Ex'd to LA and delivered to his agent's office? And for what godforsaken reason? I don't even want to think about what Dean wanted to keep that head for!
So, there you go - I'm altogether ambivalent about this movie. I loved watching it, and will probably love watching it again, but have the feeling I'm always going to hate myself for it.