Greenberg (2010)

GreenbergWhat's appreciative here is how mildly; the whole episode which is efficient and affluent for the characters, is represented that even though it factors in a lot in its development and gravitas, it still isn't a game changer. The range and connectivity that this genre offers is something that other features will always lack and Noah Baumbach somehow seems to have cracked the enigma and now flaunts it majestically on screen and on paper with Jessica Jason Leigh; this time. Ben Stiller has definitely grown himself into a plausible actor that resonates and connects easily with practicality and is supported thoroughly by brilliant Greta Gerwig who too puts all her chips in. Greenberg has a smart written concept and ideology to work its way through the bigger and better dramatic acts that oozes humanity and demands attention from the audience with the help of stellar performance, gripping screenplay and perfect execution.

This is not what I would call a movie. This is a "fly-on-the-wall" experience of seeing Ben Stiller show his acting chops as a slightly mentally ill person. Although his neuroses or psychoses or God-knows-what-kind-of-problem-it- was seemed to be very real, ultimately, I didn't care. He was a pathetic, sad f'd-up person who needed psychiatric help and drugs to stabilize him. Instead, this is what happens: His rich brother, wife and family take off for a vacation in Vietnam. Why Vietnam is never explained. Greta Gerwig is their put-upon assistant. For reasons that are unclear, rich brother is allowing nutcase brother to stay at his house in L.A. while he's in Vietnam. This doesn't make any sense at all. He and wife know that Ben has had a "breakdown" -- did they for one second give any thought to what his needs might be? In other words, did they think it would be okay to let him roam around their huge house by himself? Did they somehow think that Greta would tend to all his needs? This was a device that allowed Ben and Greta to meet, but it did not seem organic or believable. Then, because Greta is at some vulnerable point in her life, she easily slips into some kind of sex/love relationship with Ben, who is CLEARLY a nutcase. It does not make any sense why this woman would continue to subject herself to experiences in which Ben is cruel, insulting, degrading and otherwise deranged. Were we also supposed to feel sorry for her? Greta has a very real, honest quality about her; that cannot be denied. She seems like a real human being and she seemed authentic. But she obviously is aware that Ben is nuts and yet... she's willing to risk possible danger to be involved with him. I just didn't buy it. Not after only knowing him a week. The movie ambles about, from one improvised scene to the next. There are occasional moments that are hysterically funny, and they are organic, and that's the best thing that can be said. But as to why these people thought this was a movie worth making is beyond me. It is not "enjoyable." You will not come away feeling "good." You will have a sad, sour taste in your mouth and be shaking your head at the end. And the "ending" -- what a joke! What a let-down! What a half-assed way to get out of this mess. Ben Stiller either IS this person, or is very good at portraying a mentally ill person who desperately needs to be medicated. Either way... why is this something you'd want to watch? IF he had learned something, IF he had grown and accepted his stupid, cruel actions (which he clearly does not in his pathetic attempt to apologize to Greta), and if he showed some signs that he was making the effort to improve, I might have given this movie a thumbs up. Since he stays essentially the same, as does Greta, I cannot. Yes, there are great moments from the supporting cast, and yes, most people have "been there" -- trying to go back into their past and fix things. In THIS way, the movie does have a few minutes of value, reminding us very clearly that we cannot go home again. But other than that, this was a very depressing, upsetting and unsettling film that I cannot recommend to anyone.

As often, most other reviews here cover virtually all you need to know, so what is the point to add another here? Well, because I want to guide better use of ya time, since from the outset I wanna immediately warn (advise): pointless, pointless and - if unsure, pointless = truly I feel, a waste of time to sit through.But I should try to be fair and explain where do I get the arrogance to recommend DON'T WATCH? After all, as with any film, a huge amount of work and effort have gone into getting to the screen, so that even if a film is so apparently poor, I tend to still always also make an effort to search out some sort of redeeming factor somewhere .. yet, as this apparently 'comedy' unfolded, not only could I not discern nor garner one iota of a smile ANYWHERE, but that one aspect was, quite conversely, crass tragi-verging on the callous: GG's character finds herself pregnant so, just sort of off the cuff decides, oh so routinely, oh I'll just go and have an induction* (=abortion!) As you do, no doubt? (Really?) And soon after, there it's done, back to routine life, so dull, that she needs a self centred curmudgeon ex-mental institute elder guy to comfort her. No introspection, no life learning epiphany, no, nothing - the film moves on .. And that's with a co-writer in also a supporting role in it, Jenifer Jason Leigh (along with director Baumbach): so how did she 'feminist-ly' countenance that? And of GG, she provides another of her characteristically dippy 'what am I supposed to be doing here' non-performances (cf. 'Frances Ha' - in, ohh, surprise, surprise, same director's same tedious offering!)And as for Stiller (bias warning too, here now - I can't think of any of his films that have ever made me laugh - except perhaps in Ricky Gervais' guest spot in Brit comedy series 'Extras' - although, then in effect taking the p out of himself as just such a spoilt curmudgeon ...) by which, perhaps his role here is an extension of that: and if non-committal to role (mere wooden shuffle through your lines delivery) acting - except for a couple of presumably leftover from earlier mental institution incarceration issues outbursts - is considered stylish, then my take is, it's style without ANY substance - at all.Nothing proceeds or really develops or happens throughout, with any commitment: what are NB and JJ Leigh trying to impart?There was one sex scene which struck me as archly realistic (probably!) - but another tragi-aspect coz it's over in matter of seconds (old guy comedy?) and in another review there was already criticism as to why a twenty something girl would plausibly find any interest in afore assessed forty plus miserable narcissist, anyway: at least in a later party scene, nicely illustrates the frisson of youngsters (c.twenties) inanely mocking him as an older guy sadly out of his age league depth, one even thumps him for daring to think he knows the music that should be played in his own home: (irony?): so there, possibly a 'striking' insight set out in the script: but is it worth sitting through to cringe at? Resolutely NO.Even Rhys Ifans seems also at a loss what to do with his character that simply never opens up beyond supposedly BS's best (most loyal?) friend moping separtee missing his only kid (who we never see). Even the dog goes through a more compelling character development with (almost) loss arc as counterpoint to ... well, what? 'Don't feed him that (sausages) coz it has a constitution disorder' - is that the message?' 'Take care of - (not my cat**), but - my dog'?Oh, but then, at one point, when about to feel flirty with one another, GG goes on a banal witter about some earlier time when her and some high school friends almost got sexually compromised for laughs (!) ... to which BS storms out, ranting on 'what was the point' to tell him that? That it was the stupidest story he'd ever heard. Well, exactement!: Was that NB and JJL's point about this film's purpose?So there you go: this is indeed, apparently stupid; stupidly pointless .. oh had I already said that? An insult not only to the wasted resources but an audience whose time is stolen from them in sitting through this, ah, what was it billed as? Ah, yes a 'comedy' frustratingly awaiting even a smile if not a chuckle. Abysmal = NO stars at all, whatsoever. * and if you do still decide to - perversely? - travail through, and some plot aspects maybe prove a little inaccurate, that's coz I would not give a second viewing simply to precisely check so. Sorry.) ** better see the Korean film instead :-) !

For most recent films, nothing is close to real life. Most of the actors and actresses are not real people. It's all fiction, but movies should be something one can relate to. That is what Greenberg is. First of all, and I know I certainly do, people should have a weakness for actresses like Greta Gerwig. She is great looking, but in the same sense as a real human being, not like most actresses are presented to be. She represents innocence, she is naive. She is Florence Marr, the personal assistant to Phillip Greenberg. When Phillip, his wife and two children go on vacation to Vietnam, his brother, roger comes to sty in the house and make a dog house. Florence seems to like his, and he likes her too, except when he is with her he drives her away. Roger Greenberg is the guy who writes letters of complaint to every company who has ever slightly bothered hi, he does not drive, he tried to kill himself and was just let out of a psych ward. You know, that kind of brother. He was in a band that almost made it big, and he stays in contact with his co- songwriter (Rhys Ifans)who wants to talk to Roger, and help him. But our neurotic (anti)hero rejects him as he does with Florence, and just about everyone else. Greenberg is a character study. Ben Stiller portrays Roger as the terrible guy women tell stories of. Stiller is intriguing; for we can't stand Greenberg but we care about him. He refuses whats good for him until it could be too late. When he gets close to a little bit of happiness, she destroys it to allow himself to stay miserable and unique. Florence wants the best for him, but tires because its hard to be around someone like Roger. The film is fascinating. It delivers great performances that mimic real life. This is why most people will not like the film. Don't take it as a romance movie or a comedy, see it as the life of a troubled person.