Profoundly disappointing

Just so you all don't think I am faltering miserably in my hundred-movie endeavor for the summer, I may only be writing about #5 but I am up to #12.

#5: The Soloist



I saw the trailer for this one a long time ago and the movie was actually pushed back so that it could contend for the next Oscars, from what I hear. To me that seems tantamount to me putting off my novelization of My Bloody Valentine in hopes of competing for next year's Man Booker Prize.

Okay. It wasn't that bad. I was just really entertained by the idea of me turning My Bloody Valentine into a novel.

I was so excited for this movie that I was legitimately disappointed when it got pushed back. I was prepared to see it in November until it was changed to a June release. I actually watched the trailer a few times between Fall and Summer because I thought that this would be one of those inspirational, life-changing movies. Instead, it was a hackneyed political statement masquerading as an inspirational, life-changing movie.

This is exactly what happened when those who weren't familiar with Rent went to see the movie based on the trailer; everyone expected an uplifting, feel-good story and then viewers were kicked in the groin with all that AIDS talk. I had been familiar with the play, personally, so I was prepared for the downer, but again here the misleading trailer led to an incredibly disappointing movie experience.

I'm not really certain what the message of this movie was. It seemed to want to make you feel bad for not doing anything to help the homeless, and yet it portrayed a character who was consciously alone--resisting the help of others throughout the movie. I sympathized with him, but primarily because he was a character who was good-at-heart suffering from an unfortunate mental illness. I'm not sure where sympathy is supposed to come in for someone who chooses to be homeless.

This issue wouldn't have been so bad if the movie didn't use Jamie Foxx's homeless character as a vehicle for presenting the unfortunate situations of hoards of homeless people in Los Angeles. You want the film to be about the beauty of someone's gift and how another person is renewed having drawn inspiration from the character. Instead, you get accused of having it too good. The statistics of the homeless in California is shoved into your face at the end as if the director believed you didn't realize his agenda from the outset. A potentially beautiful (and potentially Oscar-worthy) story was relegated to a guise for politics.

Had RDJ and Jamie Foxx been allowed to carry the story of this movie without the in-your-face message, I feel like I would have loved it. I believe this was based on a book and if it was I'm interested to know if the book was more forthcoming with its intention. It's not that I believe politics should be separate from film, but I do believe it's important to advertise honestly. Had I known going into the film what the message was going to be, I would have donated the $10 and saved myself the time.