Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘A Family Affair’ Review: Nicole Kidman and Zac Efron in a Netflix Rom-Com That Charms Despite Missteps

Published

on

‘A Family Affair’ Review: Nicole Kidman and Zac Efron in a Netflix Rom-Com That Charms Despite Missteps

Throughout A Family Affair, daughter Zara (Joey King) and mom Brooke (Nicole Kidman) argue over just what kind of a man Chris Cole (Zac Efron) is. To Zara, he’s a self-absorbed movie star boss who oscillates between unreasonable demands and threats of firing. For Brooke, he’s an attentive lover, the first man to reawaken her to the possibility of romance since the death of Zara’s father, Charlie.

Neither of them are exactly wrong — Chris, like anyone, contains multitudes. Where the Richard LaGravenese-directed A Family Affair struggles, however, is in convincing us he might be both at once. Part showbiz send-up and part earnest romantic drama, the film lurches awkwardly between its two modes without settling on a single cohesive tone. Fortunately, both halves are also blessed with the same quality that allows Chris to embody both Zara’s idea of him and Brooke’s: enough charm to make you come away smiling, even as you shake your head at its missteps.

A Family Affair

The Bottom Line

Efron delights in an uneven but enjoyable romance.

Advertisement

Release Date: Friday, June 28 (Netflix)
Cast: Nicole Kidman, Zac Efron, Joey King, Liza Koshy, Kathy Bates, Sherry Cola
Director: Richard Lagravenese
Screenwriter: Carrie Solomon

Rated PG-13,
1 hour 51 minutes

The first Chris we meet is the obnoxious one. Onscreen, he’s the Marvel-style hero of a terrible-sounding franchise called Icarus Rush; offscreen, he’s a vain man-child pitching hissy fits at Zara. He calls her at odd hours to send her looking for protein powder, and makes her assemble gift baskets for his dogs with her own money. He runs through girlfriends like tissues, then sends her to pick up his stuff from their houses. He strings her along with the promise of an assistant producer credit, but continually insists she’s not “ready” to do much more than pick up his dry cleaning. None of these gags are especially fresh — Chris is simply every spoiled Hollywood stereotype rolled into one. But screenwriter Carrie Solomon comes at them with the wry fondness of an insider who knows just how ridiculous her industry can be.

They’re further elevated by Efron, who was last seen in the weepie The Iron Claw but reminds us here that he’s an even better comic talent than a dramatic one. His crackerjack timing turns decent jokes into laugh-out-loud hilarious ones, and his puppyish sweetness keeps Chris endearing at his worst. His (platonic) dynamic with King positively crackles with both exasperation and begrudging affection. At one point, Chris scoffs that it’s “derogatory” for her to call him a celebrity because he’s a movie star, damnit. The moment plays as a joke, but it also contains a kernel of truth. Like The Fall Guy, A Family Affair serves as a testament to the power of movie-star charisma while simultaneously poking fun at it.

Advertisement

All this Hollywood satire is merely set-up for the real plot of A Family Affair, which kicks in once Chris invites himself over to the home Zara shares with her mother. While waiting for her to show, he and Brooke get to talking over tequila shots. The next thing either of them know, Brooke is ripping open the very t-shirt that Chris, only the day before, had screamed at Zara for not treating more gently.

At first, the hook-up is played for laughs. Chris remains his ditzy self, wooing Brooke from lines with his own movies. (“This time I mean it,” he insists when she teasingly calls him out on it.) Zara is so startled to find her mother in bed with her employer that she goes full slapstick, choking on a grape and knocking herself unconscious. Fumbling to explain, Brooke accidentally invokes the same excuse Zara gave her for getting a forbidden eyebrow piercing as a teen: “It made sense at the time when the guy was putting it in.”

But A Family Affair takes on a more sincere and sentimental tone as the hook-up evolves into something deeper. Kidman and Efron share a decently sweet chemistry that’s nothing like the tawdry dynamic they flaunted in The Paperboy. Chris gets vulnerable about his childhood tragedies and the loneliness of fame. She confesses it’s been years since she felt desired, and allows herself the luxury of “going a little crazy” for the first time since she can remember. Although there are moments when the film goes big with expensive dinners and private studio tours and an adorably quirky third-act gesture, the relationship is generally pitched as a slow-burn love affair, not an impassioned fling.

In fact, A Family Affair barely leans into the fairy tale of dating a rich and sexy A-lister. In contrast to The Idea of You, with which it shares a superficially similar premise, the film is largely unconcerned with the specific perks or challenges of dating while famous. Brooke is unfamiliar with Chris’ career, and she does not need him to whisk her away on vacations or bring her to fancy galas; she’s done well enough already to have her own cliffside mansion and closet full of designer dresses. Though Chris can’t so much as go for a grocery run without getting swarmed, the couple do not discuss what it might mean to go public with their relationship — and they never have to, since it somehow never happens. The biggest threat to their connection is Zara’s disapproval, not the gap in age and social standing.

The fantasies that the movie does tap into are more mundane, and almost more poignant for it. One is of being a female writer whose talent attracts, rather than intimidates, an eligible suitor. Brooke recounts how fellow writer Charlie seemed to resent her success; Chris, on the other hand, goes out of his way to find her writing, and even memorizes her best bits by heart. The other is of being a mother whose child finally appreciates her sacrifices. All three lead characters could be accused of making short-sighted or self-serving choices. But it’s Brooke the movie portrays as a saint who’s earned whatever happiness she can get, and Zara who’s made to apologize for being selfish.

Advertisement

Parallels are drawn between Brooke lovingly tending to Zara’s every need through a difficult childhood and Zara catering to Chris’ now. I’d point out that those situations are not remotely the same, and in fact have no business being in the same conversation — just as A Family Affair‘s Hollywood material and its drama feel at times like they’ve come from two completely different films. But the lines are delivered with such heartfelt tenderness that for a moment, you might be moved in spite of yourself.

Movie Reviews

When movie ratings make absolutely no sense

Published

on

When movie ratings make absolutely no sense

We need to talk about the critic reviews for The Acolyte. Critics and audiences have been at war for years.


Audiences usually accuse critics of being either out of touch or biased because they tend to downplay the quality of popular movies and shows. On the other hand, critics have a reputation for assigning ridiculously high scores to content audiences could not care less about.

I usually defend the critics even though I rarely agree with their opinions because audiences have a ridiculously warped perception where this topic is concerned. First of all, audience and critic scores are not quite as divergent as online conversations suggest.

Advertisement

Check Rotten Tomatoes. You might be surprised to learn that most shows and films have similar audience and critic ratings. Generally speaking, audiences and critics like the same things. Those significant differences people obsess over only emerge in rare instances.

Unfortunately, those are the cases audiences highlight because they concern highly publicized films and shows. But even if those differences were more common than the evidence suggests, you can’t accuse critics of being ‘out of touch with the public’ because they are not paid to be ‘in touch’ with anyone.

Advertisement

Are some critics biased? Definitely, but they are the minority. That said, the divide between critic and audience scores for The Acolyte is astounding. Right now, the show has a critic rating of 85 percent and an audience score of 14 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Naturally, some people blame the abysmal audience score on review bombing.

That term refers to a situation where large groups of people assign a negative score to a movie or show without watching it because they want to make a point. You can’t dismiss the review bombing allegations because a rabid section of the Star Wars fanbase continues to express its desire to destroy The Acolyte’s reputation online because of the social and political messages it peddles.

But even if you eliminated the trolls, the show’s audience score would most likely peak at 30 percent. In that regard, I would expect the critic rating to settle in the 60s, showing that critics are not blind to The Acolyte’s weaknesses, but they also appreciate subtle strengths such as the acting and production values.

Advertisement

An 85 percent rating is pure madness. It says that critics absolutely love a productthat audiences completely despise, and that does not make sense. You expect to see that sort of discrepancy with artsy indie projects that critics typically swoon over, not big-budget shows that are explicitly designed to appeal to mainstream audiences.

Before you argue that Rotten Tomatoes does not accurately reflect the critical response to this show, no one cared about The Acolyte. In fact, viewers initially rejected the show because of the lackluster trailers.

Advertisement

Remember Episode 3 from a week ago? Diehard Star Wars fans nearly rioted because it supposedly broke Star Wars canon by hinting at Mae and Osha’s immaculate conception. Casual fans like me don’t care about Star Wars canon. We thought the episode was boring.

And critics? They had early access to the episode and praised it as one of the most mind- blowing 35 minutes of Star Wars they had ever seen. Clearly, something is amiss. It is almost like audiences and critics are watching two different shows. I can’t help but wonder whether the online conspiracies are correct and Hollywood critics are only impressed by The Acolyte because of the diverse cast.

If you argued that the presence of minority characters (black female leads, Asian Jedi, lesbian witches, etc) was actively swaying their opinions, I would have a difficult time disputing your claim.

Advertisement

I agree that art is subjective and some viewers have genuinely enjoyed The Acolyte thus far; however, the drastic difference in audience and critic scores shows that Disney (and Lucasfilm) took a wrong turn somewhere.

katmic200@gmail.com

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Film Review: Ben and Suzanne: A Reunion in Four Parts

Published

on

Film Review: Ben and Suzanne: A Reunion in Four Parts

An intriguing romantic relationship but also a series of issues in Ben and Suzanne: A Reunion in Four Parts

Shot in Sri Lanka, “Ben and Suzanne” is a film that unfolds on a number of levels, from a tour guide to the country to the exploration of a rather complicated relationship. It is Shaun Seneviratze’s feature debut and it was shot mostly with local non-actors.

Ben Santhanaraj travels to Sri Lanka in order to reunite with Suzanne Hopper, who works for a local NGO, after a long separation. However, although his plans were to see the country and have a good time with her, she is stuck with work, which comes up at any given time. As time passes, their relationship is being tested by both the fact and a number of other episodes, while the ego and individuality of both seems to place another set of burdens.

Allow me to start with the negative. There are two archetypes of Western people living in Asian countries, or even simply staying for a bit. The one is the ‘savior’ who probably works for a Western NGO and tries to help, considering their effort life-altering for the locals, in a most of the time rather big misconception. The second is the ‘tourist’ who just wants to have a good time inside the usual bubble tourists experience, retaining as many of the tendencies they keep in their country of living, frequently complaining about everything. These two rather annoying archetypes do not represent everyone of course, but are quite prevalent, and they are also exactly the personas of the two protagonists. Suzanne is the ‘savior’ and Ben is the ‘tourist’.

Expectedly, and considering they both consider their wants as above everything, they soon find themselves clashing, with each one, but particularly Ben actually flaunting the aforementioned to each other, in probably one of most entertaining and realistic aspects of the narrative. At the same time, though, and in a yet another annoying aspect of the movie, there is no indication why those two ever got together. They seem to have nothing in common, or ever had for that matter, maybe except from the fact that he likes to make her laugh by clowning and she is quite susceptible to it. Whether that is enough for a relationship does not sound like a question with a positive answer.

Advertisement

The above essentially makes the whole approach of the movie somewhat naive, particularly because it also includes an outsider’s epidermal view of the country, especially when one compares it with a similar film we watched recently, “Paradise” by Prasanna Vithanage, or any other local films for that matter.

There are, however, a number of things that do work for the film. For starters, the chemistry of the two protagonists is impressive, with Anastasia Olowin as Suzanne and Sathya Sridharan as Ben presenting the fact that they have known each other for some time and that they both have changed quite eloquently. Their rapport is quite entertaining to watch, particularly in the erotic scenes and the moments they have fun with each other. Their fights could have been handled a bit better, but overall, this aspect is one of the best of the movie.

Check also this video

The same applies to the cinematography, with the 1:1 ratio giving a very appealing retro essence to the movie, and the overall capturing of the country by Molly Scotti is occasionally impressive to watch, despite the focus on realism. Joe Violette’s editing could have been a bit better in the succession of the scenes, but the overall pace is definitely fitting.

Advertisement

“Ben and Suzanne” has its merits, and the relationship in its center is appealing to watch. However, it frequently feels as a film that was supposed to be shot in the US, just found itself in Sri Lanka without being able to realize the difference or what to do with the fact.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie review: A Quiet Place, quivering since Day One

Published

on

Movie review: A Quiet Place, quivering since Day One

It’s a silent nightmare in New York when monsters appear and ravage the world – but it’s an exciting ride when it’s back on the big screen. 

White knuckle thrills abound in A Quiet Place: Day One, the new horror adventure from Paramount that’s infinitely stronger than a franchise spin-off movie has any business being.

That’s thanks to two luminous, dedicated talents: the first is writer and director Sarnoski, taking over from A Quiet Place franchise creator John Krasinski (who, in a funny contrast, made the family film IF this year instead), and the other is Oscar winner Lupita Nyong’o as Sam, the woman on a quest for pizza and a happy memory.

Instead of following the main cast from the popular 2018 and 2021 films, Nyong’o leads a smaller scale quest looking at Sam, a dying cancer patient, who unluckily gets trapped in Manhattan on the titular “Day One” when the auditory alien monsters arrive and begin an apocalyptic takeover of Earth.

(For those unfamiliar: the monsters from the films are an unknown species of predators who eat humans, but they’re blind and can only detect prey if they make sound.)

Advertisement

Audiences saw a small taste of that day in the prologue for 2021’s Part II, but that was in a small, midwest town. But this time it’s the millions of people in New York all being threatened at once, and some of the chases and crowd-crashing scenes are scarily tight.

Sarnoski’s eye for terrorizing vignettes and setting up smart, scary obstacles for Sam throughout the city is endlessly creative and exciting. Crashed subways, abandoned buildings, power outages and some wild weather all pose scary, sound-like obstacles that’s more gripping than the last.

The real standout is Nyong’o, who almost never leaves the screen throughout the 90-minute film. Her conviction and fear are so palpable and engaging that audiences can’t help but get invested in Sam’s survival. 

A premise of Sam wanting one last moment of peace before either the aliens or her cancer gets her may sound like too simple a premise. Under the careful nuance of Sarnoski’s direction, the team has made both a bright and bleak thriller that’s great summer entertainment.

What’s most compelling in the script are the moments when, despite the disaster, Sam (and her scene-stealing cat Frodo) is appreciating the small signs of life in the desolate city. Even though things literally couldn’t be worse, somehow Sam still has some small hope left.

Advertisement

Audiences will gasp and jump at this latest silent screamer, and if the quality control is this good, there will likely be more quiet places to find even after three movies. I’m certainly excited for what this world brings next.

A Quiet Place: Day One

8 out of 10

Rated PG, 1 hour, 36 minutes. Horror Adventure Thriller.

Written and directed by Michael Sarnoski.

Starring Lupita Nyong’o, Jospeh Quinn, Alex Wolff, Djimon Hounsou and Frodo the cat.

Now Playing at Cineplex theatres.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending