Choke (2008)

Informed that his senile mother is dying, a con artist reflects on his life and the disruptive childhood that may have led to him having satyriasis issues in this directional debut from 'What Lies Beneath' screenwriter Clark Gregg. The most intriguing name attached to the film though is novelist Chuck Palahniuk of 'Fight Club' fame and strong parallels can initially be found between the two films, from the witty voice over narration to presence of support groups. Things only get more interesting as our hero then divulges a scheme he has devised to con rich restaurant patrons by pretending to choke. For a film named 'Choke', this scheme far too soon fades into the background though and while we do see him pretending to choke two more times throughout, the film never depicts the after-effects: how he befriends those who save him and how he then extorts money from them. One might argue that the logistics of his scheme are less important than the dilemma of his mother's impending death, but there is too much sentimentality for that angle to gel. In fact, the only stand-out part in the second half of the film comes from a hilarious rape fantasy enactment gone awry, though there are also a couple of plot twists that are delightfully unexpected. Whatever the case, the acting always keeps things afloat with special mentions to Anjelica Huston and Kelly Macdonald. Sam Rockwell is effective in the lead role, but he is dwarfed by his female co-stars here - somewhat appropriately so for a film about a man who finds himself putty in the hands of all the women who he meets.

I give Choke some credit for attempting to push boundaries and assembling a nice cast for a low budget flick. I appreciate the racy borderline gone-too-far approach at edgy comedy, though it's also showered with its attempts at drama (black comedy is the target zone). The first 20 minutes of this movie I thoroughly enjoyed. In fact, I really thought I was in for a unique experience I wanted to tell my friends about. Ready for the "but"?Choke actually feels like a more profane My Name Is Earl on long play, except Jason Lee here isn't really likable and he feels more like an impression of the bad Wilson brother (Owen). Also, the tubby sidekick in this version of Earl ends up being the one you really wish the movie was about. I'd much rather follow his easy going character Denny around than the contrived attempt at quirky likability that is Sam Rockwell's Victor. Definitely would prefer to watch a bit of Denny from The Room as long we're discussing cinematic Denny's. Alternatively, utilizing the talented cast around Rockwell into more than simple role players would have likely yielded a more heart warming, genuine result.Truthfully, there's a good amount of potential here. Kelly Macdonald shines (as others have mentioned), Brad William Henke has nice moments, and the radiant Angelica Houston does her best to save the day. To reiterate, I did enjoy the randomly profane stabs at humor here. Unfortunately, the completely implausible plot and the main character gets in the way.

I realize that this movie is based upon a book and tries to keep within the scope of the original story. That said, it stands to reason that if the original story is crude and vulgar then it should be no wonder that this film is the same. So what we have here is a movie that relies upon being crass in order to be funny. At least for the most part. Admittedly, some of the scenes are quite humorous on its own. But they're almost immediately followed by a barnyard sex scene of some sort which, in my opinion, lowers the level of the film. Now, I fully realize that some people believe that being tacky is the same as being amusing. And so this film accommodates them by devolving to the lowest common denominator. But I personally thought the sex scenes were terribly dull and the humor wasn't that funny. Likewise, I didn't care for the flashbacks because they interrupted the flow of the movie. Not only that, but I wasn't really impressed by the acting either. But obviously I am in the minority. At any rate, if a person likes a film that has raunchy humor then this is a movie they will probably really enjoy. To each his own I suppose.

Many, many years ago, there was a television show called "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd". It was the first program I can recall being referred to as a "dramedy". I don't know who came up with that term, if it was a critic or a network suit of one of show's creators, but I believe it was meant to encapsulate "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd" not following the conventions or abiding by the demands of either comedy or drama. However, rather than symbolizing some new blend or fusion of genres, "dramedy" very quickly became synonymous with shows that simply aren't funny enough to be comedies or dramatic enough to be dramas. In that sense of the word, Choke is all "dramedy".Victor Mancini (Sam Rockwell) is a sex addict with a declining mother (Angelica Huston) in a psychiatric facility. When he's not trying to bang every woman who walks by, Victor fakes choking in restaurants. He lets someone save him and then asks them for money, relying on his savior's sense of responsibility, pity or self-aggrandizement to make them fork over the cash he needs to pay for his mother's care. Victor also works as a colonial re-enactor with his fellow sex addict Denny (Brad William Henke).The film jumps back and forth between Victor's miserable present and his childhood with his charismatically crazy mom, with the scenes of past and present being connected with all the subtlety of a cinder block dropped on your groin. Victor eventually falls into a relationship with Paige (Kelly Macdonald), a psychiatric doctor who claims she can help Victor's mom. That relationship renders Victor impotent, though he seems less bothered by that than by his delusional mother's refusal to tell him who his father is.The story goes through several other digressions, but eventually winds up with Victor having an epiphany. Though all of Choke is about how his mother's care gave Victor's grotesquely low self-esteem and that's the source of all his personal dysfunction, he apparently decides to stop being a sex addict and just be a person who likes to have sex with strangers in strange places. I don't get that distinction and this movie didn't do anything to clarify it.There is a decent amount of nudity here and scattered bits of comedy that pop up now and again, but Choke is never really funny. The script sets up a lot of theoretically humorous situations and personal characteristics. All it is, however, is set up. The punch line should come when someone does something funny in those situations or behaves in a funny way because of those characteristics and those punch lines are too few and too far between.On the other hand, the supposed drama in Choke fails in the opposite direction. Every emotional and intellectual conflict in the story is spelled out so plainly and unavoidably, there might just as well have been sub-titles running along the bottom of the screen explaining to the viewer what he or she is seeing and how they should respond to it. I can't speak for everyone, but it's impossible for me to get invested into a story when it feels like someone is slapping me in the face every 5 minutes and saying "Do you get it, idiot?"There's no complaints about the acting, though Joel Grey is so effective at invoking the tragedy of sex addiction he only underscores how cavalierly the rest of Choke deals with the matter. Writer/director/actor Clark Gregg only does a decent job with the last third of that designation. He knows which direction the camera should be pointed but beyond that, he doesn't appear to have any grasp at all of his story or how he's telling it.This isn't a disastrous bit of cinema. If you're looking for something intentionally off beat, you might like it. I found myself wishing I had watched a marathon of Molly Dodd reruns instead.