lastchance.jpg

You Ain’t Nothing to Me if You Got Nothing To Say


Last Chance Harvey / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | January 12, 2009 | Comments (26)


The title alone is a semantic minefield: Last Chance Harvey. It’s gratingly clear from the outset that the thrust is that this is Harvey’s last chance to do something good for himself, or his relationships, or his career, but the ambiguous phrasing and distressing lack of punctuation are apparently trying to make the title into something more, as if Harvey’s a guy who thrives on last chances, or can be counted on when his back’s against the wall, or whatever. Basically the title is something that should be clearer, and could be, but willfully chooses to stop halfway, and that’s the problem with the film overall. Writer-director Joel Hopkins absolutely wastes a talented pair of leads in a story that could have played out in an hour on television, as is abundantly clear by the fifth montage of the main actors just walking around town and killing time and purportedly getting to know each other in a friendly way that could lead to something more. Granted, Hopkins’ work would be considerably easier if he weren’t competing against Richard Linklater’s Before Sunrise, to say nothing of a century of generally competent and engaging filmmaking that has driven home the lesson that not all stories must be heavy affairs, but they do need to be honest, and genuine, and possessed of a momentum that makes them worth watching. Last Chance Harvey is none of those things.

Harvey (Dustin Hoffman) is an amateur jazz composer and professional jingle writer in New York prone to fits of self-pity and worry as he watches his coworkers leave him behind for the digital age. He’s on the verge of being fired as the film opens, and though he’s about to leave for London to attend his daughter’s wedding, he repeatedly tells his boss (Richard Schiff) that he’ll be back for the big client presentation on Monday. His boss comes out with the ultimatum: “You’d better land this one. … There are no more chances, Harvey.” (Hopkins was apparently worried about whether his film’s title would make sense, or whether viewers would be able to pick up on things like subtext or the general plight of the protagonist.) While all this is going on, Hopkins occasionally cuts to the parallel story of Kate (Emma Thompson), a Londoner who works at Heathrow taking surveys from travelers and who inhabits the sort of quiet, sad life like Harvey’s that would have made for a good character study in a better film. Harvey and Kate have their first run-in when he arrives at the terminal and brusquely dismisses her attempt to ask him a few questions, and though this first meeting provides a solid springboard for the way they’ll reconnect later in the film, it loses some of its accidental luster after a series of near-misses that reduce romance and chance to nothing more than cheap movie tropes. For one instance, there’s the scene where Harvey exits a cab just as Kate enters it from the other side, which for Hopkins must mean that their love is destined to be burned into the heavens. It’s not that these things can’t happen, even in film; it’s that Hopkins is content to borrow from stories like the odious Serendipity and act as if getting Harvey and Kate together is an inevitability not even cabbies can undo.

The bulk of the film unfolds over the 36 hours spanning the rehearsal dinner and the wedding itself, with Hopkins maintaining the parallel structure as Harvey and Kate put themselves through similarly awkward situations that are just real enough to feel legitimate but often too cartoonishly handled to be empathetic. At the dinner for Susan (Liane Balaban) and her fiancĂ©, Harvey keeps bumping into people or stumbling in the swanky restaurant’s rock garden, or trying to hide the theft magnet that was somehow never removed from his new suit. Unable to stand the sight of his ex-wife (Kathy Baker) and her new husband (James Brolin), not to mention the news that Susan wants her stepdad, not Harvey, to give her away, Harvey tells Susan that he’ll be bailing on the reception the next day so he can return home. Their exchange is one of the few in the film that works because it plays to every sad, broken emotion that the characters have lived through but don’t know how to fix, and had the film packed more moments like this one, it would have had a greater and more genuine impact.

Finally, halfway through the film, Harvey finally meets Kate when he’s back at the airport after the wedding, and they strike up a conversation, and take a walk around the neighborhood, and I think we can all see where this is going. Hopkins sees it, too, and never pretends to make the film about anything other than Harvey and Kate’s gradual coming together. And that’s not bad. But if that’s the story — and it is — Hopkins must put enough into the characters to make them worth watching get together, and he’s got to respect them enough (to say nothing of the audience) to make it feel real. While Harvey was feeling ostracized at his daughter’s rehearsal dinner, Kate was on a bad blind date with a guy clearly too young for her; these people have both been through bad experiences recently that mirror their greater struggles in life, and what’s more, Harvey is reeling from loneliness and pain and stress and heartbreak and obviously looking to latch onto something he perceives as stable. For Hopkins to have brought this up, even obliquely — in other words, for him to have Harvey and Kate actually discuss their similar states of desperation and loneliness and a need to find some, any, remedy —would have made for a marvelous and brave story about finding new and different love and what it means to honestly take a chance. But instead Harvey and Kate just wander around town before heading to the reception so he can take that last chance to make things right with his family.

I wish I could say some of that was spoilerish in any way, but again, Hopkins makes no secret of the fact that he’s out to make a howlingly predictable and not very honest “romance” that borrows from other films and a general sense of fantasy. (I cannot even get into the subplot involving Kate’s mother, her neighbor, and a Rear Window-meets-Love Actually turn of events without shaking my head in dismay.) The film is a trodden-down attempt at a late-life love story that eschews the emotional complexity and maturity worthy of its characters in favor of something cheaper, easier, and infinitely more hollow. Hoffman and Thompson do as much as they can with the limited script and hands-off direction, but they have nowhere to go because they’re never allowed to act like adults with any real history before the opening credits. There’s an honest fear and desperation motivating Harvey and Kate that’s blanketed by Hopkins’ desire just to tell a falsely sweet tale, and he winds up cheating his art and his audience. The movie he makes is easier to swallow, but it tastes stale.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Solid Gold Review | The Third Annual (Sh)It List





Comments

At least I'll say this for Hoffman, he hasn't become a caricature of himself like Hamcino. Emma has enough goodwill as well for me to let this pass.

This time...

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 12, 2009 2:04 PM

Oh boo! I was hoping for better with Dustin and Emma.

Posted by: Cindy at January 12, 2009 2:10 PM

Does it bother no-one that in the trailer (and last night at the GGs) Emma Thompson continuously looks like she's going to smother little Hoffman? She stands so close to him and seems to hover over him in a predtory way.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 12, 2009 2:11 PM

Well written Daniel, but I can't say you've made me want to watch this one. Sounds as exciting as "About Schmidt".

And BSlim, Flopman is coming awful close to a parallel career as Hamcino as possible.

Posted by: Xtreme at January 12, 2009 2:11 PM

Has anyone seen Dustin doing the rounds on the late-night TV shows? The man is a fountain of dirty jokes. But somehow he can get away with it without seeming creepy. Something about that twinkle in his mischievous little eyes.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at January 12, 2009 2:13 PM

And BSlim, Flopman is coming awful close to a parallel career as Hamcino as possible.

Posted by: Xtreme at January 12, 2009 2:11 PM

------------------------------------------------

I fear you might be right, although at least Al will always get a reprieve on account of Looking for Richard (it just showed how much the guy commits and respects his peers) same for "Flopman" (nice)...Hackbert DeNiro on the other hand has shown himself to be a major ass. I'm done with him (post-Ronin).

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 12, 2009 2:16 PM

Speaking of Shakespeare, Hoffman knocked it out of the the park with MoV on stage, but then he turned around and did Meet the Fockers. I just don't know what to think.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 12, 2009 2:19 PM

I hate to be the apologist here, but Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino are such legends that they're at a period in their careers where they can make whatever movies they goddamn well want to. However, that doesn't excuse them from making dismally bad pictures.

The only difference is while Dustin Hoffman still puts in some decent work and chooses entertaining (if fluffy) movies, Pacino has had a REALLY rough time filling the hours he's not filling Beverly D'Angelo, if in fact he still is. (Ocean's 13 was fun, but I know better than to entertain thoughts that 88 Minutes and Righteous Kill are anywhere near that.)

Besides, at least it isn't Mamma Mia, the Sanjaya of the Golden Globes.

Posted by: Mike R. at January 12, 2009 2:21 PM

I just don't know what to think.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 12, 2009 2:19 PM

-------------------------------------------------

From *my* point of view, Hoffman still has "range" something that I fear the other two icons left behind five years ago.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 12, 2009 2:23 PM

Mike, you need to watch ""88 Minutes" to understand how far the mighty Pacino has fallen. I've always had a man crush on both of these little guys, but Al hurt me with that movie. Hurt me bad. I just hope Dustin cares more than that.

Posted by: Xtreme at January 12, 2009 2:27 PM

I'm sure there's been one, but I honestly can't think of a single movie since Kramer vs. Kramer (or Tootsie) that I liked Hoffman in. Rainman was good, I guess, but seriously, what has he done in the last 20 years that qualifies as "good"?

Emma, on the other hand, is always wonderful. I can't think of a single misstep of hers. I didn't see Nanny McPhee though...

Posted by: Lainey at January 12, 2009 2:27 PM

Great review, Dan. I really wanted to like this one, wanted it to be honest and small and quiet, but it sounds like it missed the mark.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at January 12, 2009 2:28 PM

"...I honestly can't think of a single movie since Kramer vs. Kramer (or Tootsie) that I liked Hoffman in..."

---------------------------------------------

Lemme throw these in...HEAR ME OUT!:

Hero, he was so good at doing that part that he made me cringe, what a loser that character was and he played PERFECTLY. Outbreak, totally believable in that, Hook he was the only good thing there.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 12, 2009 2:32 PM

Paddydog,

Once again we agree: I saw Emma and Dustin together at the GGs last night and thought, "When did Emma Thompson become afflicted with giantism?!" I've never thought of her as a big girl, but she looked like a yeti next to him. It didn't do either of them any good.

Posted by: jimbob at January 12, 2009 2:45 PM

I never even heard of this movie before reading this review. Was there any marketing at all for it?

That said, I really can't imagine that Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson, despite their respective talents, would have any on screen chemistry. They just don't seem to fit. Maybe that's just my bias, since I've always found Emma Thompson to be delightful and have always found Dustin Hoffman to be sort of irritating.

Posted by: Forbiddendonut at January 12, 2009 2:48 PM

Slim, Outbreak was not a good movie, but it was watchable and he was watchable in it. Didn't see Hero. Hook? Hmmm, I'll have to think about that...you may have me with that one. Dammit. I hate it when you're right.

Posted by: Lainey at January 12, 2009 2:51 PM

...Hook he was the only good thing there.

What about RU! FI! OOOOOO!?

Posted by: jM at January 12, 2009 2:58 PM

A good review Dan... I'm not surprised about it. I have to say, every time a commercial comes on for this movie, and Hoffman says that AWFUL line ending with "I'm going to dance your socks off!" or whatever, I barf in my mouth a little bit. Really.

Posted by: b at January 12, 2009 3:35 PM

For one instance, there's the scene where Harvey exits a cab just as Kate enters it from the other side

That pretty much says it all right there. That's the kind of thing I expect from some Olsen twins/Zac Effron atrocity, offered by a young director who thinks he just all creative and shit. Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn might have made something like that work fifty years ago, since it hadn't been done five thousand fucking times.

Posted by: rikkitikkitavi at January 12, 2009 5:12 PM

As much as I rail against basically everything under the sun I am a sucker for a good love story. Having suffered many great pains in my life, I'm glad I still have the ability to love.

Posted by: Pookie at January 12, 2009 7:24 PM

I'm glad I still have the ability to love

You and me both, Man-Thing.

Posted by: HalfTheWomenInTexas at January 12, 2009 7:39 PM

I strongly disagree with this review. I genuinely enjoyed Last Chance Harvey and though it was a lovely slice-of-life movie with characters who grew on me as the movie went on.

I shudder to think to think what kind of horrible contrived movie it would have been if, in fact, it had incorporated the reviewer's suggestion to:

"have Harvey and Kate actually discuss their similar states of desperation and loneliness and a need to find some, any, remedy"

Ugh, why on earth would 2 lonely people talk about their loneliness while falling in love? And why would that be "marvelous and brave" instead of like every stupid overly-explained Hollywood-ized movie I've ever seen (see: anything on Lifetime). Really, people don't talk like that. Thank god.

Posted by: Michellers at January 12, 2009 9:54 PM

I fear you might be right, although at least Al will always get a reprieve on account of Looking for Richard (it just showed how much the guy commits and respects his peers) same for "Flopman" (nice)...Hackbert DeNiro on the other hand has shown himself to be a major ass. I'm done with him (post-Ronin).

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 12, 2009 2:16 PM

I really hate it when you make it impossible not to like you.

Posted by: Che Grovera at January 13, 2009 12:08 AM

Emma, on the other hand, is always wonderful. I can't think of a single misstep of hers.

Stumbled across five minutes (I swear) of Junior the other day on HBO. Yeah, that one. The one where Schwarzenegger is a pregnant man. You have to assume that either poor Emma lost a bet, or they just threw too much money at her to turn it down. (Frank Langella's in it also.)

Solution: switched it over to HBO Latin and watched a few minutes in Spanish. It's almost funny that way.

Posted by: Heywood J. at January 13, 2009 6:06 PM

Lainey,

I thought he was great in I heart Huckabee's.

Posted by: David at January 13, 2009 6:09 PM

So...for a woman in her forties, the last chance is only a man in his seventies? I get this if Emma were...67. She could still be the younger woman in that case.

So...it is a fantasy of every woman in her forties to have an affair with a man who is in his seventies. Yes, it is every woman's fantasy in her forties to hook up with pee pants. Pleaze.

Posted by: Sammie at January 19, 2009 5:00 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.