The Weather Man - Cloudy with a chance of depression

The Weather Man (2005) Dir - Gore Verbinski

Gore Verbinski, what a man. Having managed to pull himself away from Johnny Depp for 5 minutes, he set his eyes a little lower than the epic fantasy-pirate adventure he's become well known for (Mousehunt (1997) having been long swept under the carpet. Poor Lee Evans) and directed something of a standard city-drama. Especially surprising after his terrible remake of Hideo Nakata's Ringu (1998). He's generally been a hit and miss director, saving his skin with the Pirate's of the Carribean series. That said however, he's obviously been reading from the Book of Great Directors and has taken their first commandment to heart. "Thou shalt milk any successful franchise dry." Spot the recurring theme? I wonder how many sequels Rango is going to get...

"I managed to fit all my good films in
this tiny box!"

What was I doing....? Oh yeah. The Weather Man. The cast was brilliant, that much can be said from the off. Nicholas Cage pulls off another role (this time wannabe national weatherman David Spritz) with subtle dignity despite his clumsiness and is genuinely one of the best things about this movie. He's something of a Marmite actor, leaving you wanting more or forcing you to scrape your tongue with the nearest sharp edge, making you gag because everyone knows what happens when you rub your tongue too vigorously. It's something of an over-extended metaphor but you catch my drift. I can put my hand on my heart and say I disliked Nicholas Cage until I saw Lord of War (2005), which was filmed almost in parallel with this film. Con Air (1997) was empty, relying too much on John Malkovich. Then again, National Treasure (2004) was like an abortion to the face so I can't complain too much about Con Air. Anyway, he shares a lot in common with the director. Liable to make hit and miss movies. I'll move on on this note; you really did feel for him in this movie. He did a great job.

Next came his onscreen wife, Hope Davis of The Matador (2005) and About Schmidt (2002) fame. I'm more than willing to admit I knew little about this woman beyond those two titles, but IMDb tells me she has quite a career to her name. She's worked with Anthony Hopkins, Sigourney Weaver, Gwyneth Paltrow, Sandra Bullock and Jeff Bridges, so that's at least 3 other good actors. In this film though, she seemed rather wooden. Her character was admittedly in constant turmoil, but she seemed to deal with it in one of two ways. Shouting or going cold. Even with these there was no middle ground. Rubber-stamp acting anyone?

Michael You're-Only-Supposed-To-Blow-The-Bloody-Doors-Off Caine was honestly spectacular in his role as Robert Spritz, David's father. He's getting on a bit now, but he refuses to step down from the pedastal of 'Infallible National Treasure' (not the film, that was easily more than fallible). I suspect his last character will be filmed on his deathbed, and you know what? He'll do a good job of it. As careers go, the only word I can think of to describe his is 'consistant'. Even in his recent 2009 film Harry Brown he is unmovable as a character. Then, to see the actor himself in interviews he is the same person, but so different. Why is it that there is a Book Of Great Directors, but no Book of Great Actors? I want to see a generation of incredible onscreen actors, not a generation of actors trying to get the spotlight by being as different as possible. Maybe the problem nowadays is that kids see the spotlight of great actors and expect to just explode into Hollywood. Go back a few decades and there was no such thing as Disney Channel stereotypes pouring their childish (what I assume to be) whimsy into your face, showing you that you too can be a hit singer with a record label aged 7. Michael Caine fought in the Korean war for Christ's sake! He worked his ass off in menial jobs before getting a break as a stage manager when he came back from combat. He wasn't some rich teenager whose parents were living through him. He has more than a lifetime of experience to dwell on and the day he dies will be a very sad one, if hopefully a very long off one.

This says it all.

Nicholas Hoult has weird eyebrows and honestly it mystifies me how he's even become this successful. I haven't believed a single character he's ever played, be it in About a Boy (2002), Clash of the Mythologically Inaccurate Crap (2010), or Brit teen-drama (the first of it's kind) Skins. He is just awful and I wish I wasn't the only one to notice this. He is also like Marmite, but instead of the choice you just jump to immediately gagging on your own tongue. It sounds harsh, but I don't give a damn. This boy is the same character in everything he has ever done and even then it isn't believable. You would have hoped that with such extensive practice he could have at least got that one down. However, all this said, he suited the character of a broken child who can't defend himself from himself or anyone. Maybe because that is him. I suppose casting should be congratulated on that one at least.

The plot is where this drops out of brilliance. Described as 'Bright and breezy, with sunny intervals.' by NOW (Aren't you clever NOW? You managed to make a pun based on the weather! Want to roll over so I can rub your tummy? Who's a good boy! It's you! Yes you are!), and 'A fresh and quirky comedy. **** ' by The Sunday Mirror. Well as I said in the title with disdainful parody of the so-called wit of NOW, nothing about this is comedic. Ok, that's a lie, it is funny in parts, but those parts are so filled with depression they hardly cut through it. It's like being forced to eat a bowl of limes and someone offering you a lemon to take the edge off. I have a horrifically dark sense of humour, but I couldn't find it funny. You know where they say "All the funny bits are in the trailer"? Never has this been more true. I bought the film based on the trailer and persuaded Grizzly (my co-writer) and a couple of our friends to watch it only to find us suicidal by the end of the film. I even showed them the trailer from the DVD to show them why I bought it and they agreed. Do not be fooled by its light-hearted family-comedy appearances but take a look for yourself:

You could be forgiven for wanting to see this comedy. It looks hysterical and looks like it has a feel-good vibe. I don't want to go into spoilers, but everything bad happens to this man. Nothing at any point will cheer him up because nothing he does amounts to anything but someone else hurting him or feeling hurt. He hits absolutely rock bottom and when you think to yourself "Well, it will pick up now and everything will be sorted", the film ends. This is a genuinely godawful comedy. I have never seen a worse comedy, and my parents once forced me to watch Catherine Tate doing a Christmas Special.

Here's the twist. This is a brilliant film. Deep, impacting and dry, going where no other drama of the age has tried to go. That's the problem. Marketing. Had this been advertised as an emotional drama of a man striving for the best for his family against all odds, this would have disappointed no-one and pushed into cinema history I think as a great example of hard-hitting film. It forces you to stare personal agony in the face, and it should be commended for that. But this is NOT a comedy. I can't stress that enough.

 By all means, go out and watch this film as a serious piece of drama with a few pick-me-up comedy lines, but watch it as a comedy and I promise your evening will end with you either redecorating your wall with your internal organs care of a firearm, or it will end a short drop and a sharp stop care of your belt and a light fitting.