Hey, everyone. ”Moriarty” here. I didn’t even know this film existed until right now. This sounds like what William Goldman once described as “Hollywood Horseshit,” but it’s obviously still just testing. Is there any pulling this one out? Let’s see what BC has to say:
Hey guys, BC again with a look at PERFECT STRANGER (no THE to slow us down!), which had it's "first west coast showing ever!" tonight in the godforsaken town of Northridge, which is VERY north of LA. I feel bad for the poor sods on the east coast who saw this thing already. The story is standard thriller fare. Berry's a reporter named Ro (Row? It doesn't matter, she calls herself Veronica or Catherine throughout the film anyway). After a big story she worked "six months! SIX MONTHS!" on gets swept under the rug, she is looking for redemption. Along comes an old friend (Nicki Aycox) who has some dirt on Harrison Hill (Willis), an ad exec who somehow has celebrity status on par with Donald Trump. The friend ends up dead, so Berry goes undercover at Willis' ad agency to get to the bottom of it. She is aided by her friend Miles (Giovanni Ribisi), who is obviously infatuated with her and yet she never throws him a bone. Anyway, things happen of mild interest on occasion, but really the movie is about Ichat. Yes, it seems Willis and Berry's friend met in a chat room and then things escalated, and she wasn't the first. So Berry and Ribisi make a fake profile for her to lure Willis in, and of course she starts really falling for his "charm" (i.e. he drinks daiquiris), leading to about 20-25 min worth of scenes where they.... IM each other. Oooooh. This is one of those movies you just watch in disbelief that someone actually wrote it. And further disbelief someone read it and said, "yes, I want to be in the Perfect Stranger business." and put up probably somewhere between 50-70 million dollars to make the goddamn thing. Oddly enough, the last time I felt that way was about the movie Taking Lives, and lo and behold, I am just learning now, same goddamn writer! Most offensive, the writer squanders every opportunity to make his story interesting. We have a movie about fake Internet profiles, and the lead suspect is an ad exec. Do they draw any parallels between the thin line of truth and fiction on the Internet/advertising? No. Instead, we have about 20 shots of people drinking Heineken, one of the firm's clients. Also, Willis has an assistant who we are repeatedly told is a lesbian. Does Berry use this to her advantage to get closer to Willis? Nope, she's just a lesbian for no reason other than to take up screen time. OK, movie. But at least Taking Lives had some attempts at thrills, and some actual sex. This film has neither. Despite the promise of "strong sexual content" on the invite, the closest we get to nudity is on a CORPSE. And that's it. Everything else is full clothed hohummity. So for you nudity fans, stick with Monsters Ball and/or Color Of Night. There isn't even any friggin violence in the movie, save for Willis punching a guy (for reasons I couldn't follow). And then the "twist" end had a murder, but its basically offscreen. I don't want to come off as a gore/tits guy, but Christ, if you have a "thriller" with "strong sexual content" and the film has no thrills or sex, what the fuck? Are we supposed to find people talking about sex more cinematically interesting than actually having sex? In fact, if it weren't for the occasional f-word, this movie would probably have to fight to earn a PG13. Even THE NET had a few chase scenes. The entire movie seems like those deleted scenes you see on DVDs where the director says "this wasn't a bad scene per se, but we had to cut it for time." At the end when I filled out my comment card, I had a hard time thinking of what to write for scenes I disliked, because none of the scenes had any goddamn impact. What could I write? "The scene where Berry once again calls Ribisi to hack into Willis' computer?" "The scene where Berry and Willis chat, and SAY ALOUD every goddamn thing they type?" There are some occasional stabs at being a real thriller (light investigation, some standard "uh oh he's coming stop snooping" type crap, but for the most part, the movie is just there, with absolutely nothing interesting happening. One scene though, has to be seen to be believed. Willis catches Berry trying to break into his PC. He accuses her of doing just that, but she, on the spot, makes up this ridiculous excuse about how she was leaving him a note about some restaurants where he can order a drink he likes, because he only knew of two, but she knows of seventeen of them. Which is laughable enough, but then SHE ACTUALLY HAS THE LIST OF RESTAURANTS. And hands it to him. Seriously. Back to the twist ending. Hilariously enough, the final 2 or 3 scenes of the film come so abruptly you'd swear that they were reshoots, and yet they are the only scenes that have any sort of merit, tho probably not in the manner intended. Spoilers ahead. First off we have a trial scene where Willis is tried and convicted of the murder. THEN we discover the real killer, who is.... BERRY! WOW! or, WHAT? Yes, it seems the dead girl had some dirt on Berry, and Berry was sick of being blackmailed, so she killed her and set up this ridiculously elaborate plot to frame Willis. She then kills Ribisi to frame him for it instead, because he figured it out. Its so retarded and contrived, it actually works as a parody of these types of movies. However, on the test card, we are told there are in fact 3 endings to the movie, and to pick which person we want to be the killer. Always a good sign when a film is on its 2nd test screening and they have three endings already shot. Way to make your film tight and stick to your ideas. The director is James Foley, who directed Glengarry Glen Ross and the mildly enjoyable con film Confidence. I place no blame on him, or the stars, there's nothing they could have done to elevate this idiotic and boring script. Berry is OK enough as Ashley Judd. Ribisi basically plays the same sort of weird creepy guy he's played 10-20 times already, but has some good moments, especially near the end when Berry discovers how Willis comes off best because he's playing a charming, but slimy, jerk. He gets to use his (oft-forgotten) comic abilities in a few scenes, certainly delivering more laughs than his intentional comedies (such Whole Ten Yards, which incidentally had better thrills than this alleged thriller). This is a terrible film. I didn't stay for the focus group, but apparently they didn't want people who disliked it, the guy who was sitting in front of me was asked to stay, but when they saw he didn't like it, they told him he could go home. I would have loved to hear what people said they liked about it, but alas. Maybe someone else will write a review to counter mine. P. S. the film is from Revolution Studios, same as Brothers Solomon, where I was called a plant because I liked it. So if I'm a plant, I'm bad at it, because I wouldn't even recommend this film for a drunken mst3king night. Unless you just think I am a plant for Will Forte. In that case, I can't change your minds. BC
