The Human Contract (2008)

Well, you can certainly tell from watching The Human Contract that writer/director Jada Pinkett Smith knew exactly what she wanted to do with this film. It is equally clear she didn't have much of a clue how to actually do it. The result is like looking at someone who thinks they can do a magic act because they once saw Doug Henning perform.The surprisingly unattractive Julian Wright (Jason Clarke) is the creative heart of a small firm in what used to be called advertising but is now known as "brand management". He's also got a pending divorce and a complicated family history with his mother (Joanna Cassidy) and sister (Jada Pinkett Smith). The least of the complications is that Julian is white and his sister is black and if they explained that in the movie, I must have missed it.Just as his firm gets a buyout offer that could make Julian richer and more successful than he ever dreamed, he also meet an uninhibited iconoclast named Michael (Paz Vega) who challenges everything Julian has ever thought about himself and his life. They fall in lust, which this movie mistakes for love, and both his obsession with Michael and his family dysfunction end up threatened the buyout deal for Julian's firm.You know how something can sound great in your head but when you say it out loud it's not great at all? That's what The Human Contract is like. Smith clearly had a story to tell here. She just couldn't get it to come out right. This thing is poorly structured, has no sense of pace, doesn't have a firm grip on its main character, has too many supporting characters, too many extraneous scenes and piles up personal tragedy like it was stacking cordwood.Let me give you a couple of examples of the sort of unskilled storytelling at work here. Julian has a darkroom in his apartment with a combination lock on the door. When he meets Michael, they have some brief and playful banter about him not letting her inside. A while later, Michael makes a reference to the dark room in a post-coital embrace. Just a reference, mind you, not even asking for the combination. Then toward the end of the movie, the darkroom is put forth as this huge symbol of how Julian is closed off from Michael and everybody else. It's supposed to be a big moment, but Pinkett Smith spent only about 8 lines of dialog and less than 45 seconds of screen time building up to that big moment. She knew how important the darkroom was to the story, but she didn't know how to convey that to the audience. So, she really just fumbles around and then springs it on the viewer like a bear trap.The other example is the whole thing with the buyout. It's built up throughout The Human Contract as one of the major pressures on Julian and there are several scenes about how his behavior regarding his family and Michael is threatening the deal. Pinkett Smith is much more effective in building up to the question of whether the buyout will happen or not. Then when that big moment comes, it passes with a shrug and is never dealt with again. The audience is left to assume what happened, assume what the consequences were and assume how those consequences impacted Julian. Pinkett Smith obviously never heard the saying that when you ask someone to assume, you're making an "ass" out of "u" and "me".The Human Contract looks good and is relatively well performed, but it's like a beautiful woman with a sexy accent telling you a joke that isn't funny. You only laugh because you want her to have sex with you…which is not something this film is ever going to do. Save the fake laugh and watch something else.

This intense drama seemed very carefully crafted. Involving the past, the present and the future, the individuals in the movie capture some of the human foibles but suggest a better future. The idea of having a human contract indicates that we can be alone and together with others - most intensely in relationships but also with our work, our family and our time. The primary characters are at the peak of power and living a stylish lifestyle and sexuality needs to be dealt with. The movie does not prescribe but lets the audience draw conclusions. Thinking about the issues of life, sexuality and mortality, the director points the audience into the dark corners but does not do the thinking for the audience. Some will feel deeply uncomfortable as there are no answers. If the film makes you uncomfortable, that might be the point. Or you can feel comfortable with the ambiguity and draw your own conclusions. Great camera work, well casted, intensely acted. The ideas posed that one can control one's own destiny, pick a different path, go to the greatness within. Jealousy, rage, passion, enlightened thought, different choices all thrown in a jumbled salad that I truly enjoyed.

I have been a (good, intelligent, bright) film buff since my teens (I am now 60). Yet, I have never seen such an awful performance as Jason Clarke's here. On the other hand, I had never heard of this actor until I read his bio at IMDb.com and was knocked out to find that he has been in about 40 movies!. This sort of Josh Lucas-looking fellow is certainly an awful actor...at least here!. On the other, I am a beautiful women admirer (as many of my pro jazz composers and musicians colleagues are), and have been a follower of beautiful Spanish Paz Vega long before she got into American studios and got a reasonable grip of her English (in a Penelope Cruz vein). Paz is beautiful and a very good actress altogether. She plays her role in such a natural way and easiness that you actually believe her...But Jada P. Smith, ah!, that's another matter!. Too philosophical writing at times contrast with trivia; characters with lots of tension are left abandoned not quite resolving or explaining the reason of their acts (Pinket Smith's husband on screen?...the long repeated boy calls mom who doesn't answer sequence...the not clear relationship of Clarke's character with his mother...and so on. The sex scenes are almost plain soft ardient porn (explicit but with clothes on), which I don't mind at all, only that why they don't fit in with the rest of the film?. Who is this guy (Clarke)and why is he so violent?. No history is suggested to cover the interratialness of brother and sister -- (white and afroamerican respectively). Colors of the film have been overstated with lots of red both in costumes and burden faces and blood, contrasting with black and rather dark scenes. I dunno...This film is a huge question mark, embellished onty by beautiful Paz Vega.

This CRAP is what happens when you let movie stars direct. Especially those with even richer, more famous movie star husbands to serve as executive producers.This movie was a mess. While attempting to be a cross between an erotic thriller and a euro-style character piece, it fails miserably in both genres.It was a total waste of a good cast. And though the acting wasn't bad, the story (especially the resolution) is atrocious. I actually yelled "No" at the screen at the end because I couldn't believe that that was how they'd end it. No ending really.In fact, if I spelled it all out word for word, it would hardly be a spoiler because NO ONE WOULD CARE.Avoid this movie at all costs.