Laurel Canyon

Laurel Canyon

I rented this one because, well, Kate Beckinsale was in it. "You'll be sorely disappointed," a friend prophesied, and in this case his words turned out to be true. Laurel stars Beckinsale as Alex, a sort of mousy grad student working on a complicated thesis. For reasons best left to the film, she and boyfriend Sam (Christian Bale) end up having to stay at his mother's house (Frances McDormand) while on break, or between semesters, or because Sam got a working internship or something. It's not entirely clear, and to be fair it's been a few weeks since I've seen it. Anyway, Mama Jane is about as far from her son and his uptight gal as possible -- a pot smoking 40-something liberated woman who produces records and cavorts at all hours with her young charges and their friends and families. Naturally the wild lifestyle begins to disrupt Alex while she works, and so she goes down to see what all the ruckus is. It would have been more interesting, I guess, if it weren't so obvious; young prude is seduced by the bacchanaliac lifestyle of the music world and quickly succumbs to the temptation -- drinking, drugs, and the very obvious interest of Jane's boyfriend Rowan (Russell Pollard). What starts out as Alex unwinding a little ends up as a near-threesome in a hotel. Not that Sam is innocent either -- there's a long and pretty pointless subplot with him flirting with a co-worker (Natascha McElhone), but you can tell from the start it's not really going to go anywhere. Most of the characters in this film stumble around like they're in a haze of stupidity; no one seems to have any insight and none of them ever seem to learn anything. It could merely be that writer, directors, and even the actors just got a monumental case of the lazies, but whatever the problem was, it was dutifully caught by the cameras and is up on the screen for your examination. The movie painfully creeps along, offering us little than self-absorbed character bits, and then limps to its flaccid conclusion with no one learning anything, apparently, except that it's okay not to hate the hippies. The performances don't help. Most of the characters are stoned half the time, and I suppose the actors nailed that, but it doesn't make for especially vivid viewing. Beckinsale is unappealing -- which isn't easy for her -- and you have no sympathy for her character as she descends into the sleazoid zone. McDormand is likewise laid back and easygoing, but making this sort of thing feel natural is hardly a challenge for someone of her abilities. Bale makes a go of it, trying his best, but even a passionate outburst by him at the end can't inject much life into the torpid proceedings. Laurel Canyon is advertised in the tagline as being "between Hollywood and the rest of the world," but it felt more like I was watching a flick from the Valley of the Zombies. Do yourself a favor and be smarter than I was -- take my friend's advice as I failed to and avoid this vacuous clunker.

I watched this movie with my mother. Halfway through it she thought Lisa Cholodenko was an Ukranian filmmaker who wanted to make a comedy about Los Angeles. I told her she was wrong and that it was a feminist view of a Los Angeles native on the war of the sexes. She had to agree in the end. Men who like soft, womanly women had probably better stay away from Laurel Canyon. It serves tough chicken. And men are wimps. What impressed me (and made me show it to my mom) is the amount of contempt the story shows the the son of the main character, the latter being a domineering, successful music producer who changes her lovers regularly. The son is a trained psychiatrist and a gentle and considerate person who likes to live a life one might call conventional. His aim in life seems to be to serve and to be useful, not personal success or even glory, maybe not even satisfaction (the opening sex scene with the girlfriend seems to indicate that). Not surprisingly he blames his mother for the instability he experienced as a child and would like to keep his distance from her. Yet he moves into her house in Laurel Canyon for professional reasons, assuming she would live elsewhere at that time. For some unexpected reason this is not the case. Along with the son comes his equally conventional, career oriented highbrow girlfriend who likes to finish her doctoral thesis. The girlfriend is fascinated by the encounter with the mother and her entourage and „opens up" and blends in. He does not and I felt that it is somehow held against him. The movie sets out to show that the son hasn't got a chance against his powerhouse mother and that his lifestyle and attitudes are basically wrong and stupid. It does not explain the characters, the girlfriend's transformation for instance is presented with disarming simplicity as a „natural process". Within the social dynamics of the ashram-like household the ideal man is presented: an irresponsible acting cute sex toy who also happens to be a musician and singer (although not a very good one) and who, I assume, is already scheduled for being discarded in due time. The cast is better than the story. Frances McDormand is really brilliant as the mother and gives her character unexpected charm and charisma. It really makes you believe she is successful in her job. Natascha McElhone's beauty is somehow beyond belief and slightly surreal. She plays the son's companion from work and potential lover. That wimp is of course much too inhibited to seize the opportunity. The relationship remains platonic, which may well cause further frustration and loathing. Incidentally, the location which serves as the mother's house is just beautiful (I wouldn't mind living in a place like that) and well used as location. I did not like this movie, and yet I can recommend it. It's interesting and offers a lot for later discussions.

We don't see often scripts like this one on our screens. Even if I don't agree with its message, I loved the basic idea and the way it was written. BUT... *Spoilers* ...this movie has failed. This is a perfect example of how long is the distance between a good script and a good movie. The war between emotions and logic seems to be eternal and we'll probably never stop writing or making movies about it. In this movie, the messages are strong and disturbing, specially the relationship of Sam's mother with her daughter in law. No culture can accept this thing as natural, and even if it had only a semantic function in the writer's mind, it should be presented in a very artistic way in order to make the whole thing work. Something that does not happen here. The movie is filmed like an ordinary family picture, with nothing innovative, and it's definitely poor in art. In order to make this picture work, I believe that they should either erase this sick relationship and keep their crew as it is, or keep the original script and call Polanski to film it or something. In brief, I believe that this is a lost opportunity. It could have been a great movie, but it has turned out to be just sick soft-core. Sorry, 3/10.

I can't believe that critics and moviegoers alike love this movie. based on the reviews I read in the Chicago papers, I was very excited to see this movie. I'm glad I waited until it came out on video. The plot of this movie was obvious from the 5 minute mark when Sam and Alex are on the plane and he's complaining about how awful it's going to be staying with his mother for 2 weeks. The characters are one dimensional and their actions are inexplicable. Why would Alex's charecter ever be drawn to the band people; because she wanted to see the other side? Please, these people were borish and disgusting. What was her motivation for exploring her dark side? Was there something wrong with her relationship? Was there something troubling her about her work? Did she have a troubling relationship with her parents? Who knows, there really wasn't any motivation given for any of the characters actions. The only possible explanation is selfishness and that's just plain boring. But, beyond all of this, the most preposterous plot line in the movie was the relationship between Alex and Jane. In what world does Alex, with her level of education and intelligence, with her backround and upbringing, ever enter into the relationship she has with Jane. This women is potentially her future mother-in-law. Although it might make for some interesting Christmas dinners. I believe Frances McDormand is one of the great actresses in American cinema. But all the great ones make stinkers, lets hope this is hers.

I saw this film at the Miami International Film Festival and was thoroughly absorbed and entertained. I don't know if it will be as successful as the director's much-lauded "High Art" from several years ago; "Laurel Canyon" is not as serious, though it does explore some of the same themes. All of the performances are pitch-perfect. I suspect audiences will especially enjoy and identify with Kate Beckinsale's character: a studious and sheltered young doctoral student who takes to the hedonistic Los Angeles lifestyle in a big way. Frances McDormand and Christian Bale are also wonderful. Music is almost another character in this film; it pervades the atmosphere. The music, by such artists as Mercury Rev and Clinic, complements and underscores the dynamics between the characters. It's been awhile since I've seen a movie with such an intoxicating sense of place as well: whether accurate or not, Los Angeles is portrayed as a sybaritic wonderland. The film revels in the sensuality and freedom of this rarefied realm, and it's intriguing to see the effect on the young couple. When Frances McDormand's music producer character asks Alex her opinion on the record she's producing, Alex declines, saying she doesn't know much about popular music. McDormand responds, "Follow your instincts. It either pulls you in or it doesn't." This movie pulled me in.

Sam (Christian Bale) is an uptight twenty-something newly-graduated psychiatrist with an equally intelligent girlfriend, Alex (Kate Beckinsale) who moves to Los Angeles to begin a new job, and moves into his ageing rock-chick mother (Frances Dormand) Jane's plush Laurel Canyon house. Jane is a free-loving free spirit who is enjoying an affair with Ian McKnight (Alessandro Nivola), the young lead singer of the band whose record she is producing. Sam is deeply uncomfortable with his mother's lifestyle, but Alex, after overcoming her initial apprehension, quickly becomes seduced by Jane's way of life. On paper this is the kind of story that's more suitable to a comedy treatment than drama, but writer-director Lisa Cholodenko's talent is of an introspective nature: she prefers to analyse the motivating factors behind the decisions her characters make. When handled well this kind of approach to a subject can prove to be compelling stuff but, unfortunately, Cholodenko has failed to create a set of interesting or believable characters, and offers little in the way of insight into why they behave the way they do. Too many important aspects of the inter-relationships, particularly between mother and son, are glossed over and too many issues left unresolved. While Cholodenko sets up a parallel between Sam's situation and that of a young, disturbed patient that you would expect to lead to some kind of revelation on his part, he seems to learn nothing. Perhaps any enlightenment he experiences is supposed to be internalised, which is fine in a book but, in a visual medium, I would expect that if a character doesn't talk to other characters in order to communicate what they are feeling, then the message would be communicated visually. In this film, neither happens. During the big confrontation scene between Sam and Alex, which is presumably intended to at least provide a platform for resolving some of their issues, all we learn from Alex about the reasons for her behaviour are that "I just got caught up," and "I was curious," which are the kind of lame excuses you'd expect to hear from a sullen juvenile caught smoking pot rather than reasons offered by a super-intelligent young woman for totally out-of-character relationship-threatening behaviour. There are too many of these inconsistencies in behaviour from poorly drawn characters. The film is salvaged to a degree by a brassy performance from McDormand, who comes across convincingly as a slightly jaded seen-it-all-and-done-it-twice type of woman who has never grown emotionally beyond her teenage years. She adopts this laidback attitude for the part that could have come across as parodic in less capable hands. Bale is good in a largely one-dimensional role, although the impact of his performance as Patrick Bateman in American PSYCHO has forever typecast him in my eyes. Beckinsale, another Brit like Bale, is a little bland, and doesn't possess the talents required to wring anything out of such an underwritten role as that of Alex. Curiously enough, an American plays the only British character in the film. While Alessandro Nivola's accent is convincing, he seems to be concentrating so hard on getting it right that he misses the proper inflections and shifts of tone at times. That said, he gives a fine performance as does Natascha Henstridge as Sam's beautiful colleague and potential love interest. Bottom line: difficult to figure out exactly what Cholodenko is trying to say, largely because of the quality of the writing and an inconclusive ending that leaves the viewer feeling cheated. Watchable only for some decent performances.

Laurel Canyon deals about the adversities you have to deal with whether you are more or less experienced. Every character on this story has different experiences: some are more naïve, some are more bohemian, some are more averse, and some don't care at all, but all of them have consciously made a mistake. I say consciously because there's no such thing as someone making mistakes in these situations without thinking thoroughly about the outcome. The premise and development are as simple as it can be, but simplicity doesn't mean banality. The screenplay in its simplicity has an incredible depth and reliability, whether it is on the awkward situations characters get into, or the sexual adventures, that some of us have been through. And to those who have, this movie speaks our language, because it relies on us and us in it. This is why some independent movies are such a pleasure to watch, because even though we are not there, we are those characters.

When I finally decided to watch LAUREL CANYON, I thought that this would be a good movie. I mean, just look at the cast, right? But then in hindsight, I should have known better, simply just by *really* looking at the cast: Christian Bale and Natascha McElhone should have told me to expect a quasi-disaster, with Bale having appeared in a long string of terrible films (like REIGN OF FIRE, EQUILIBRIUM, etc) and McElhone having an almost identical number of crappy projects, like KILLING ME SOFTLY or REVELATIONS, or the half-baked SOLARIS remake. From now on, if I see either actors headlining a movie, I will lower my expectations quite considerably. But the two actors are not to blame for the complete crappiness of LAUREL CANYON. The director, the script and the producers who greenlighted this stillborn project are first and foremost to blame here. The story sorta had potential (behind the scenes of the music industry) but I've never seen a movie shoot itself in the foot on so many occasions as this film. It's almost unreal. Whatever chance this film had to turn up good was repeatedly destroyed by the kooky decisions made for the film: 1 - The Christian Bale and Kate Beckinsale characters are so annoying and unbelievably fake that the whole drama of the story, which weighs on their attitude towards the people they have to live with and their new dwelling, falls apart from the get-go. Those characters aren't real people but just types. 2 - Kate Beckinsale's acting. But I don't blame her for such a bad bit of acting. Her character is so ridiculous, being a quasi-frigid woman who turns into a free thinking woman who's willing to have sex with her boyfriend's mother(!), that I don't think any actor, including Meryl Streep, could have given some gravitas to this joke of a character. 3 - Natascha McElhone's accent. Just awful. One of the worst accents I've ever heard, even beating out Rosanna Arquette's awful accent in THE WHOLE NINE YARDS. No one noticed how bad the accent was? Was everyone in denial or asleep at the wheel? Why even an accent?!?! 4 - The story. 100% predictable and devoid of anything interesting, including drama (the scene where Bale and Beckinsale scream at each other and then cry is laugh inducing). The scenes with Frances bitching over the phone with the female record producer are trite and serve no purpose at all. 5 - The music. The music the band plays is so bad, certainly the ballad, that I had to fast forward through these scenes. If you're making a movie about the music industry, please get some good music first because the whole reality of the film falls apart once we hear the crappy music. Those are the five major points where the film actually shot itself in the foot for no reason, as those points could have easily been fixed before they started filming. The only redeeming feature in LAUREL CANYON is Kate's beauty. She's really gorgeous. But she should really choose better film projects in the future.

I saw this film with a group of four and, when it ended, we were all amazed with our patience to sit through two hours of directorial aimlessness, character superficiality and degenerating dialogue, giving the director the benefit of our doubts. Lisa Cholodenko should have asked herself one question before ever beginning to write and shoot this film: "What do I want to show here?" I hope she will do this before starting her next project, otherwise her films must be shown with a refund policy.