free counter with statistics Perfect Stranger | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

bruce_willis1.jpg
The Killer in Me is the Killer in You

Perfect Stranger / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | April 13, 2007 | Comments (31)


A lot of credence is given to the auteur theory, the belief that the director is the ultimate guiding force of a film and its sole (or strongest) creative voice; the words and images are under his oversight, and the result is a product of his vision. Obviously, that’s an extremist view that doesn’t fully take into account the writing, acting, producing, score, editing, lighting, set design, and everything else, but it’s not always wrong. For instance, a Scorsese film is pretty uniquely Scorsese. But the theory is also deeply flawed. How else to explain the fact that James Foley, who helmed Glengarry Glen Ross, could be the same “artist” (and I use that so, so loosely) who’s responsible for the risible, idiotic faux-thriller Perfect Stranger? There’s no better argument for the importance of good source material than realizing that the man who directed Al Pacino and Kevin Spacey in the David Mamet classic also thought it was a good idea to run Bruce Willis and Halle Berry through another lifeless, plodding potboiler that should’ve gone straight to Lifetime. The script from Todd Komarnicki (only his second) is fraught with the kind of clichés, pointless scenes, and murky plotting that halfway-decent screenwriting software is supposed to polish. The twists are inevitable but unengaging, and the big reveal tries to be shocking but winds up feeling like a cheat in its overwrought attempt to bring in some kind of larger meaning.

Rowena Somethingorother (Berry) is a reporter for the New York Courier, which appears to be an unspecified hybrid of legit rag with tabloid pap. The film isn’t seven minutes old when it’s revealed that Rowena publishes her articles under a pseudonym, at which point whatever fragile grip the film had on plausibility is severed. Why does a headstrong, accomplished woman write under a man’s name? Why are her editors OK with this? Wasn’t this the basic plot of “Remington Steele”? There are so many possible answers, none satisfying, and the tag team of Foley and Komarnicki, who seem to be operating at the learning-disability level, never go into it. Sure, I get that it’s their first declaration about the subjectivity of identity, but it’s an unnecessary one. One night Rowena runs into childhood friend Grace (Nicki Aycox) at the subway station, where Grace helpfully dispenses with some clunky exposition: Grace has been having a fling with the very rich and very married Harrison Hill (Willis), an ad exec, but he’s decided to cut her off, so Grace provides Rowena with a stack of sexually provocative emails and hints that Harrison’s wife, Mia (Paula Miranda), might be the cause of Harrison’s sudden coldness. Rowena and Grace aren’t even that close, but that doesn’t stop Grace from giving Rowena a nice investigative set-up. And wouldn’t you know it, ol’ Grace winds up dead a few days later, poisoned and hacked up. Maybe Rowena the investigative reporter should user her undercover skills to dig up some dirt on Harrison Hill.

Rowena enlists her research assistant and tech guru, Miles (Giovanni Ribisi), to help her get inside Hill’s life because Grace met Hill online and Rowena wants to do the same. Yes, that’s right, Foley and Komarnicki are recycling what is already a hoary old chestnut in the digital age, the online meet-up. Chalk it up to rights issues, but movies about the online community pretty much never resemble the actual thing, and when they do, you wind up with a 90-minute ad, like You’ve Got Mail. Miles, who’s got an obvious crush on Rowena that goes way beyond earnest and into creepy, establishes an “IOL” account for Rowena, who soon enough starts chatting via instant messages with Hill (she got his screen name from Grace) and a few other random strangers. It’s patently unbelievable that a character of Rowena’s intellect and drive would have had no exposure to the chatting devices that most adults and more than a few children mastered about a decade ago, but then again, she’s also apparently the kind of woman who finds security in a male pen name. Komarnicki’s script is curiously dated, from the use of new-but-not-really technology to the awkward sexual politics.

So, anyway, Rowena gets a temp job under a phony name at Hill’s ad agency and proceeds to bat her eyes and not button her shirt and do whatever she can to get the man’s attention, which of course she does. She’s now using two fake personas to get close to Hill, in person and online, and they’re equally dull. Berry’s a performer, not an actor, and her range is limited to looking frightened or looking bored, peppered with the occasional outburst of irrational anger. At the same time, Willis is almost too good at playing the kind of suave prick with no greater motivation than his own success; there’s nothing for him to do here but sleepwalk through the part, and that’s what he does. He’s only as menacing as the cheap music stings and lazy editing can make him, which is to say, not very. Ribisi actually has the meatiest role as the combination sidekick-pervert, whose obsession with Rowena could be masking a deeper truth (cue cheap music sting).

Komarnicki’s screenplay tries to inject tension in the requisite places — Rowena sneaks into Hill’s office, etc. — but tension is hard to manufacture when nothing seems to have any consequence. What characters do from scene to scene rarely impacts what happens later; you could walk in for the last 20 minutes and it’d be like you’d been there the entire time. Add to that the film’s laughable lack of technological know-how and its weird half-misogyny, and Perfect Stranger becomes the epitome of disposable entertainment, only without the entertainment.

Daniel “The Shark” Carlson is the lead critic for Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Redline | Disturbia



Comments

Daniel, my God. This was scary. I saw this movie this morning and all that was going on in my head was that it should have been a TV movie. Then as I thought about it closer with the female empowerment, the perverted friend, the sleazy boss, the rapist dad... this movie should have been on fucking Lifetime!!!

It even has a good Lifetime channel name. "Perfect Stranger... Only on Lifetime".

Then I saw you compare it too. Man, good thinking. I sooo hated this movie.

Posted by: Ryan at April 13, 2007 10:09 PM

Berry's a performer, not an actor, and her range is limited to looking frightened or looking bored, peppered with the occasional outburst of irrational anger.

Finally. Somebody acknowledges this. I am indebted to you.

Posted by: Daphne at April 13, 2007 10:14 PM

Mmm..Smashing Pumpkins.

The movie sounds really dull though. I'm sorry you had to suffer through it.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at April 13, 2007 10:52 PM

The only potential good thing I saw coming from this film would be another Halley Barry nude scene. I haven't heard anything about it existing, which means it probably doesn't, which means I can rid this film's existence from my mind right... now.

Posted by: Mitch Clem at April 14, 2007 2:33 AM

@ Daphne: I have the quoted paragraph you posted on my clipboard right now, I was planning on making the exact same point. Comments re: greatness of minds etc. etc.

I remember seeing the trailer for this I think my thought process went something along the lines of

"Oooh! Bruce Willis (I can't help it)... Ew! Halle Berry... Is she attempting to hook up with him online?... Oh I see: he's creepy... This movie can fuck off."

Glad to see the review confirms my initial impressions. I feel newly justified in adding it to my "I will never watch this, oh please God don't make me watch this" pile.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at April 14, 2007 8:21 AM

Not to be crude, or anything, but I've always thought that Berry can only generate anything resembling a convincing affect onscreen during, well, sex scenes. I find that a little creepy... but a lot hot. (snicker)

Posted by: Landon at April 14, 2007 10:00 AM

Wow... When Halle was on the Daily Show the other evening talking about how brilliant this movie is, I was nearly convinced that it wouldn't totally suck ass. Perhaps Dan, she isn't quite as inferior at her craft as you make her out to be?

Posted by: litelysalted at April 14, 2007 12:59 PM

I don't like Halle Berry either, and why is it that Hollywood is always at least five years behind the curve on technology??!?!??!?

And why are the roles for "strong" women always reduced to "strong woman who's really a fragile & delicate flower that needs protecting and doesn't have a goddamn bit of sense" or "strong woman who's really a borderline sociopath that uses her gender as cover for her social/political/monetary/corporate ambitions"??

Posted by: Camille at April 14, 2007 1:06 PM

Hmmm, Halle Berry and old man Willis, let me start with an eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewww. Now then, Halle as a reporter, nope, can't even imagine that. Aaaand, Giovanni Ribisi playing annoying tech-guy AGAIN.

Sounds like a winner.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 14, 2007 2:45 PM

do we see HALLE`s TA-TA`S yes or not gonna see it?

Posted by: pasadenamike at April 14, 2007 4:00 PM

I'm kind of loving that the title is but one consonant away from the beloved 80's sitcom with Bronson Pinchot.

Posted by: Samantha T at April 14, 2007 4:13 PM

When Halle was on the Daily Show the other evening talking about how brilliant this movie is, I was nearly convinced that it wouldn't totally suck ass. Perhaps Dan, she isn't quite as inferior at her craft as you make her out to be?

Well, she has fooled many for a significant period of time into thinking she's a true actress. Hell, she's actually won awards, for pete's sake.

To be fair, Halle seems like a nice person IRL. And she's certainly not the worst of actresses. At least she tries, bless her heart. But if we going to reward mediocrity, I'd like a Golden Globe as well, please. I'm pretty sure I have about the same range, with absolutely no training.

Posted by: Daphne at April 14, 2007 5:57 PM

Any positive impression I might have had for Miss Berry based on "her being nice' was obliterated by that incident in which she fled the scene of an accident leaving a wounded victim without rendering assistance. NOT. COOL.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 14, 2007 6:59 PM

Halle Berry is gorgeous, but are we really supposed to believe that she is the same age as Grace? The actress who plays Grace is in her early 30s, and Halle is around 40. Details like that make me crazy. Beautiful as she may be Halle looked at least 10 years Grace's senior. And she can't deliver a line to save her life.

Aaaand the rest of the movie sucked too.

Posted by: Laura at April 15, 2007 1:20 PM

James Foley, the trainwreck - where to start?

Foley has directed *one* good movie in his entire life - the startlingly well acted and creepy "At Close Range", which is a small gem, and was his second film. See it for some of Sean Penn's best work. Great cast, well made. Good film.

I wasn't much of a fan of "Glengarry Glen Ross" because I thought it was pretty much just the play, filmed.

But man, has he made some stinkers since then. Really, really bad movies. Like "Confidence".

You kind of wonder whether something happened to his brain along the way. Like it rotted under the influence of drugs, or he had a stroke, or something. While I don't agree with your assessment of GGR, I do agree that it's hard to see how that director got into this mess.

Posted by: rocky at April 15, 2007 2:53 PM

So, am I the only one who immediately thought "Instant On Lighting" when he mentioned Halle's IOL account? Or does no one else have as bad of taste in movies as I do?

"It's got IOL in every room!"

Posted by: tlb at April 15, 2007 7:32 PM

At Close Range? Really? Was that the one with Walken, with Madonna on the soundtrack they went around stealing John Deere tractors?
My memory is kinda fuzzy but, I vaguely remember wanting to kill myself just to end the boredom when I went to see it. I could be wrong though.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 15, 2007 7:39 PM

@Camille: There is a very logical reason for your observations clearly women are not capable of being independent unless they have some kind of mental defect making them borderline psychotic.

Aaaaah Hollywood - how accurately you portray our world.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at April 16, 2007 4:12 AM

"I'm kind of loving that the title is but one consonant away from the beloved 80's sitcom with Bronson Pinchot."

When my boyfriend and I saw a preview for this, he turned and said to me, "Which one's Balki?"

I knew this was gonna be bad. Reallllllly bad.

Posted by: em at April 16, 2007 11:04 AM

I find it really amusing how I never read a positive comment about Halle Berry as an actress, yet so many other mediocre actresses are never taken to task in the same way.

Case in point: Rachel McAdams, Naomi Watts, Amy Smart, Elisha Cuthbert...there are so many mediocre blonde carbon copies running around hollyweird that never get ripped on as much when I read comments on them.

Hmmm lets see... What separates these mediocre interchangeable actresses from Halle?...blonde hair and white skin.

Yup, thought so. Fucking rascists.

Posted by: Dynamic Duo at April 16, 2007 11:18 AM

"the tag team of Foley and Komarnicki, who seem to be operating at the learning-disability level"

Sheez, I read Pajiba for it's intelligent reviews and snarky commentary, but this statement is just ignorant and rude. The term "learning-disabled" is not a synonym for "mentally retarded" or "stupid" or "intelligence impaired", which I'm going to assume you were going for when you made that statement.

Posted by: Oy! at April 16, 2007 12:40 PM

Dynamic Duo -

If it'll make you feel better, check out the comments on recent films starring Sandra Bullock, Scarlett Johansson or--the "whitest" of white actresses--Julianne Moore. These are some of the other actors who've recently been honoured with a patented Pajiba beat-down (poor mites).

Posted by: Ranylt at April 16, 2007 1:28 PM

My objection to Halle lately isn't about her immediate and apparetnly whole-hearted failure to really apply the "Door-breaking-down" achievement of winning an Oscar. Perhaps she isn't getting good scripts. Perhaps she needed a break from emotionally challenging roles. That's fine.

However, it seems to me that she is another victim of "aging actress psychosis" whereby a previously talented and interesting actress removes everything interesting or different about herself by: a) getting plastic surgery/botox b) growing/bleaching her hair out so she just looks typical instead of stunning, c) choosing movies that showcase her vulnerability and "femininity", so as not to intimidate the assholes in Hollywood (and the audience)who like their female leads barely-clad and submissive, d) all of the above. (See: Nicole Kidman).

I'd LOVE to see Halle play a compelling, strong female lead with confidence and grace. NOT a pseudo-sado-masochistic wet dream in pleather, NOR a pseudo-smarty quack of a shrink in an inexplicably wet asylum, NOR a pseudo-badass assassin-terrorist who for no story-driving reason at all is sitting topless by the pool. I'm noticing a theme. Phony-baloney and wetness. SHAME ON YOU HALLE! All the other insipid, interchangeable bimbettes are still too young to have figured this out yet- but YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER!!

Posted by: go big red at April 16, 2007 3:52 PM

Case in point: Rachel McAdams, Naomi Watts, Amy Smart, Elisha Cuthbert...there are so many mediocre blonde carbon copies running around hollyweird that never get ripped on as much when I read comments on them.

Well now, I've been called many things, but racist isn't one of them. Interesting. Anyhoo, I can't even recall the last movie Amy Smart was in (Crank, I think, and she was completely useless and irrelevant, IMO). Elisha is in that "we all know will be really bad without even seeing a trailer" movie Misogyny or something. Wouldn't really make sense to randomly bash Amy or Elisha in this thread since.....well, they're not in the movie or really connected to anyone in the movie I think. That said, I agree with you with regard to their mediocre acting abilities. At the same time, no one I know pretends they're anything more, and neither does Hollywood apparently. I'll include Jessica Alba on that list.

As for Rachel and Naomi - can't say I agree. For one thing, I don't think Rachel is blond (at least not naturally?). Plus, at least she's done different types of roles (and this is coming from someone who's never seen, nor will EVER see The Notebook) believably. If I had never seen Mulholland Drive, I might agree with you about Naomi. Although Nicole Kidman is the more popular of the two, I actually think Naomi is the better actress. Why she agreed to do King Kong, I'll never understand.

Let's see - who else? I think Nia Long is a stronger actress than Halle. I like Angela Bassett because she plays strong women, but she's kind of one-note. Cameron Diaz sucks, and I can't understand why she continues to be cast. While I think Salma Hayek is the more attractive of the two women, I think Penelope Cruz is the stronger actress. And based on Spanglish alone, I think Paz Vega is probably better than both of them. Scarlett Johansson is definitely overrated, and I have no idea why Thora Birch isn't given the props she deserves. Love Rachel Weisz and Kate Winslet. Think Rene Russo is fabulous, but not a big fan of Kate Beckinsale.

So there you have it - the unsolicited opinion of a racist. Hee!

Posted by: Daphne at April 16, 2007 7:03 PM

There's something about Giovanni Ribisi, don't know what it is (since he's usually playing the creepy, psychopathic or neurotic guy), but he fascinates me.
What say ladies? Which actors unexpectedly get you hot/piques your interest?

Posted by: rose no thorns at April 16, 2007 11:02 PM

I agree, Rose, Giovanni Ribisi has fascinated me ever since Saving Private Ryan, maybe before. I've semi-enjoyed a lot of crap movies just because of his presence in them. This one, however, has to be a pass. The comment above, "which one is Balki?" cracked me up!

Posted by: Kristin at April 18, 2007 1:46 AM

I agree too, Rose, I love Giovanni Ribisi. I saw The Mod Squad remake, and his character had this shy interest in Claire Danes' character, and I wished I was her. :)

I can't think of many others that are sort of odd, yet compelling. Maybe Sam Rockwell.

Posted by: Loob at April 19, 2007 11:53 AM

Thanks for using that lyric from the Smashing Pumpkin's Disarm...otherwise this movie looks like it sucks...

Posted by: G at April 19, 2007 6:13 PM

Why do people who are as successful as this still do movies like this? Haven't they had enough "Gothika"s and "The Jackal"s and "The Rich Man's Wife"s and "Tears of the Sun"s?

When I first saw the ad, I thought to myself "Is it 1990 again?" just because that should've been the last time either of these people would've felt the need to involve themselves with pure mediocrity. I'm not a fan of either of them, but still.

I guess even rich people still have mortgage payments.

Posted by: Stacy at April 20, 2007 6:40 PM

"Case in point: Rachel McAdams, Naomi Watts, Amy Smart, Elisha Cuthbert...there are so many mediocre blonde carbon copies running around hollyweird that never get ripped on as much when I read comments on them.

Hmmm lets see... What separates these mediocre interchangeable actresses from Halle?...blonde hair and white skin.

Yup, thought so. Fucking rascists."

It's not racist to think a black actress sucks, if she does.

Berry sets herself apart by mentioning her race constantly, as though her overly-rewarded lack of talent were a credit to any group!

The crappy white actresses are interchangeable because there's so many of them. Would you rather see 100 more sucky, mediocre black actresses, too? Would that be less "racist"--equal opportunity boredom and talentlessness?

Here's hoping they ALL disappear, and good actresses of all colors get more attention.

Posted by: Vi at April 26, 2007 5:57 AM

There are enough of Bruce Willis' smarmy grins in this movie to last a lifetime. I could barely stay awake to the end of this fiasco. If my wife wasn't with me I would have left the theater after 10 minutes. Oh, never mind, I wouldn't have been there in the first place. Bad writing, bad acting, totally predictable "action", extreme facial close-ups in every scene, including one of Halle's teeth. Miles' grubby little room with a wall full of Halle's pictures has been done, what, a couple hundred times. If didn't have free tickets I would have thought about asking for a refund.

Posted by: Humptymixer at May 4, 2007 12:57 PM