Director: John McNaughton
Mad Dog and Glory is a film that exists in MovieLand but doesn't know it. Let me explain. MovieLand is where most movies are set - people have thoroughly exciting jobs, have sex with attractive people, and come into contact with an unending parade of interesting characters. Everyone always has interesting things to say. Just about all action films and comedies take place in MovieLand. One problem with films set in MovieLand is that it's difficult to empathize with the characters because everyone is so unrealistic. A lot of 'famous' films from the 70s try not to take place in MovieLand - characters may be bored or boring; they may be interesting people with nothing to say.
Mad Dog And Glory tries to be a 70s-type film, but the characters fall totally flat. On the one hand, the plot is completely ridiculous and implausible, but the dialogue is largely 'realistic' (i.e. dull). Are the characters funny? Some of the things they say seem like they're trying to be funny. I don't know. All in all, it's a giant waste of DeNiro and Murray, both of whom seem like they're miscast here.
This movie's direction and style feels straight out of the 1980s. It's therefore hard to believe that 5 years after this movie, Murray would be in Rushmore, and DeNiro in Ronin. One year later, Uma Thurman would be in Pulp Fiction. I also feel like I have a mental divide that exists in the mid 90s when I became a seeker of movies, rather than a passive receiver of them. Anything before that time feels ancient, anything after that time feels 'new'.
I almost agree with your closing sentences as they would apply to myself, but I can't quite fully agree - I think it's because I still like so many movies which I watched as thoughtless entertainment as a child, some of which I appreciate more fully as an adult. In any case, it's a significant thought, one which may shed light on others' inscrutable opinions about quality and modernity. I think some critics have a reverse effect - films made before their entry into the world of film, or during the heyday of their engagement with film, become the canon, and films made after an arbitrary point relating to the critic's awareness are seen as pale reflections of the classics.
ReplyDelete