PDA

View Full Version : Mike Binder: REIGN OVER ME



mouton
03-25-2007, 01:32 PM
REIGN OVER ME
Written and Directed by Mike Binder

Charlie Fineman: I don’t like this.
I don’t like remembering.

Sometimes it takes a catastrophe to shut a man down and sometimes it happens little by little over time and no one knows until its already happened. REIGN OVER ME is the story of two such men who find themselves in similar positions despite the drastically different paths that got them there. Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle) is a successful New York dentist, who has his own practice, a gorgeous apartment and a family that loves him. He is coasting comfortably on his success until he happens to cross his college roommate on the street one day. Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) doesn’t do any coasting, except on his motorized scooter. Charlie lost his wife, three daughters and family dog on September 11th, 2001. They were on one of the planes that crashed into the towers and he was on his way to meet them at the airport when it happened. Charlie had his life taken from him in one moment while Alan has let his slip through his fingers over the course of his entire life.

Writer/Director, Mike Binder (THE UPSIDE OF ANGER), has placed all the elements carefully to allow for these two men to heal each other only he has forgotten to connect them or give them any personality of their own. The film itself does its own coasting as it presumes that its supposed bravery to deal with post-traumatic stress experienced by those touched directly by the events of September 11th is original enough to sustain itself. The presumption is that anyone with a soul will allow their heart to go out to this man because they can still feel the pain from that day. I have a soul and I still feel the pain but my heart doesn’t automatically go out to a man just because you tell me he’s ruined. Even Sandler, who showed great dramatic promise in PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, relies too heavily on audience expectation, allowing his Dylan-esque mess of a haircut and inability to sit still to show his hurt. The alternative is to show what Charlie went through that led him to this place in his life but no one needs to be bombarded with that imagery again. Only, the planes crashing into the towers was just the beginning of Charlie’s experience. The emptiness that followed is what specifically hollowed Charlie Fineman and there is no trace of that pain in the film until it is too late.

Binder also had a difficult time balancing out the two separate experiences of his characters. As Charlie has the showier, more intense trauma to deal with, Alan’s lessons to learn become an afterthought. The divide is uneven but I almost wish Alan’s plight had been given little to no thought. It is both tired and tedious to tell of a man who achieved all of his goals but somehow eluded happiness. It is then also all too simple and increasingly irritating to blame these problems on the wife. Alan’s wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) makes him dinner, wants to speak openly with him and spend time together learning new things. She is making an effort and doing her part and all he can do is resent her for it because it’s a lot easier than facing the fact that he is responsible for his own happiness. Helping Charlie becomes a convenient way to avoid both his own problems and his wife. Of course, he learns that his wife is not to blame for his dissatisfaction but you know that he will from the moment you see there is a problem. There is no other solution that could lead both the film and the character to resolution. In fact, ultimate resolution is what removes all urgency from the film. Charlie and Alan meet and there is no question that they will learn from each other. So obvious is the point of this film that it becomes entirely predictable.

REIGN OVER ME opens and closes with shots of the streets of New York City. As the people scurry through the maze, it is obvious that there are stories of pain and loss from September 11th still waiting to be told. This one however never quite feels real. Instead, it feels calculated and constructed which is made even sadder as it misses the emotional pay off it seems so bent on getting. Charlie doesn’t want to remember that day. He doesn’t want to remember everything he once had, that he was once happy without having to try to be. He is hardly alone though. Many have tried to forget that day and the wounds that were suffered. I seriously doubt that REIGN OVER ME is the way they will want to remember again.

Chris Knipp
04-02-2007, 03:21 PM
I tend to agree with you, but I think there is considerable vividness and freshness in Charlie and the pairing of him and Alan and there are some emotionally effective moments. I believe that Adam Sandler is rather unique as a serious actor, as comedians often are, good at playing the odd, shut-down person (as also in Punch Drunk Love, which I reviewed at the time, (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?p=322) ), even though one doesn't completely believe in his character. But your criticisms of the plot structure are valid and it's true Alan's character and situation are overwhelmed by the drama of Charlie's and being under-particularized, seems trite. Part of this may be due to a kind of broad, TV sitcom approach to scene and character that undercuts the depth or originality Binder might have achieved. In Little Children the two adulterous lovers have similar sketchily drawn undesirable mates, but because the social milieu is more knowingly drawn, we accept the sketches as being valid. I'd agree that Jada Pinkett Smith gets a raw deal and isn't given much of a role. She only gets to fold linen and talk on the phone and fix dinner. Wow! And this is 21st century Manhattan?

Sorry I started a separate thread. I didn't notice this one. Mine is here (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1997) . and I'll link to yours on mine.

mouton
04-03-2007, 09:16 AM
Hey Chris ...

I loved how you described Jada's character by her functions on screen ... she is great with that linen. I much preferred how lame she was when she guilted her husband about leaving the puzzle they had been working on. Wow ... can marriage be any more boring?

I did feel that there were emotional moments in this film but its hard not to have that when you have such fine actors. Only there were so many other thin characters that the director forced you to refocus on the ones with any depth. The crazy patient or even Dr. Liv were so unidimensional and function-based. This is not terribly surprising considering how much of a boys' movie it really is.

I think the courtroom scenes, which you refer to in your review, were what turned me off the most. They were so manipulative. The prosecutor showing the pictures of the dead family to the courtroom before ultimately leaving it in front of Charlie made me angry. I could not believe that this was allowed to happen in this courtroom or any courtroom for that matter.

I do believe people can heal each other but this was too obivous from the get-go as to where it was headed, it couldn't end up anywhere else.

(P.S. I LOVED Punch Drunk Love)

Chris Knipp
04-03-2007, 11:20 AM
Emotional moments--yes, thanks to the fine actors indeed for that, mainly Sandler, but we have to grant the writing gives them something to work with; it's not a total zero; in fact I still find the basic idea intriguing. I went to a good college. We only hear about the judges, CEO's, and Nobel prize winners it delivers, but I met a classmate who was psychotic and homeless in San Francisco. Sadly, he died on the street. I couldn't help him. But he wasn't my roommate. If he had been I'd no doubt have spent a lot more time with him.

A boy's movie--I'm glad you're bringing that out. We could say more about what a "boy" Charlie is. He's reverted to a post-adolescent state where he just plays video games, pursues the music of his youth, and fetishizes his guilt by constantly redoing the kitchen. The scooter is a little boy-toy; the things in the apartment are big ones, etc. And the movie dramatizes the perverse appeal of such a life to a "grown-up" male.

Again though I'd agree the minor characters were one-dimensional, it's the lack of authentic milieu and the crude sit-com style and look that keep those characters from being believable also. You don't have to present every character in deep detail to have him or her seem believable; you just have to set up a believable world and put them in it, adopting believable poses.
I do believe people can heal each other but. . .Sure, people can heal other people, in other circumstances than these though.

I think we agree on Reign on Me overall, we agree the leads are fine, we agree the overall effect was unsatisfactory. I appreciate another vote for Punch Drunk Love!

oscar jubis
04-09-2007, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
I appreciate another vote for Punch Drunk Love!

Here's a vote against it. Peter Wilson's 2004 NYFF review:

Punch Drunk Love (Paul Thomas Anderson, Columbia Pictures)
So this is the movie where Adam Sandler doesn't play an Adam Sandler-ish character, right? Wrong. He does, it's just not against the consciously absurd backdrop that he would cast for himself. Instead, Paul Thomas Anderson makes something far more loathsome- a cinematic wreck that postures as pioneering artistic exploration. I think he would have us watch this and marvel at all the things we weren't expecting: Sandler's non-Sandler, a bunch of violent outbursts, and some unexplained props. But actually Sandler plays Sandler. And Anderson plays Anderson, trying to define himself instead of a film. No need to see this one, unless you're in the mood for something frustrating and painful. It's presence at the festival can only be explained as "product placement". Uggh.

Chris Knipp
04-09-2007, 11:14 PM
How clever of you to find that. But what does it add to the discussion? Somwhere (did you delete it?) you commented that you'd like to know what we found of interest in Punch Drunk Love, but now you just seem interested in winning some kind of vote. There are in fact people who love the film, but there are many who hate it. That's the kind of film it is. Peter's effusion only illustrates that; it doesn't prove anything. "Product placement" seems a bit extreme as a critique.

oscar jubis
04-10-2007, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by Chris Knipp
How clever of you to find that. But what does it add to the discussion? Somwhere (did you delete it?) you commented that you'd like to know what we found of interest in Punch Drunk Love, but now you just seem interested in winning some kind of vote.
*I'm responding in the spirit of your "I appreciate another vote..." line.
*No, I didn't delete it. It's on the other Reign on Me thread.
*I've read your review several times by now (thanks for the link) but I still couldn't tell you why you think Mr. Anderson is "the most original American director now working". I don't have anything to say about Anderson and his movies that I didn't already say within the past year in two other threads. Like the Talking Heads song goes: "Say something once, why say it again".

Chris Knipp
04-10-2007, 01:07 PM
Yeah, why say anything?

Chris Knipp
04-10-2007, 10:27 PM
Walter Chaw, whose writing I like but not always his anger, is very hard on Reign Over Me in his review (http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/reignovertmnt.htm)
of it. . He starts out
I suspect that deep down everyone knows films like Reign Over Me and TMNT are as worthless as a plug nickel, that their appeal lies entirely in the fact that they'll present no surprises along with their usual meek payload of cheap emotional prattle and pocket uplift. And I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with that, either--I'm just saying I feel like I don't have much more to say after reviewing the same fucking movie about a dozen times a year. And then he manges to squeeze out another 545 words about the film nonetheless, including some sharp observations especially with regard to Reign Over Me's treatment of race, a subject he's attuned to, being Asian; in an interview last year with Mark Zoller Seitz http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2006/05/keep-up-or-get-out-of-way-interview_16.html Chaw complains that most all US film reviewers are still white males. At least some aren't straight..... And in the ensuing discussion Ed Gonzalez (another I admire) points out he come over on a boat. He brought some useful anger with him too.