Could Have Been Better....

Rating: 5/10 (22 July 2010)

This movie, an up-dated version of the classic film "Death Takes A Holiday" from the 30s, which starred Fredric March, is devoid of any real philosophical or moral qualities. It is filmed, or so it appears, purely for the entertainment value. That, in itself, is not bad, but because of the lack of true focus and insight on the part of the director, the film suffers tremendously. Here, Brad Pitt plays the part of "Death"...but, really, at this point of time in cinematic history, no one is afraid of him. Not really. And though Pitt is an excellent actor, he is not able to pull off an authoritative performance, one that demands fear from those he encounters because of Death's cold finality, and because of the ensuing questions as to the afterlife and what one's fate could possibly be in that afterlife. I would not expect the director to give us a "shot-by-shot" repeat of the original...as did some unfortunate director who gave us a needless play-by-play of "Psycho" some years back...but there were opportunities that were missed to make this a film above the cut. And any film with Anthony Hopkins has that possibility. Talent is wasted in this one, as are opportunities to make the picture rise above the fray by mere virtue of situational possibilities that could have gone in virtually any direction...but which failed to do so. First, I feel it was a mistake to make the main character one who has lived a fairly charmed and privileged life, who does not struggle with moral and philosophical issues on a 'hand to mouth' basis daily. Where is the redemptive value in inspecting the life of someone who flies into Manhattan in his own helicopter to a private helipad, to go to his office in the midst of Wall Street to a board meeting on the top floors of some corporate structure to a meeting with his board of directors? I don't see much --if any-- redemptive value there. Second, it seems that a role reversal might have served this movie well. Brad Pitt--at this time--did not have the authoritative presence that such a terrifying spectre as death should possess. People are very much afraid of death...the fear of the unknown. But clearly, the presence of death in non-threatening form is incredible waste, and its meaning is lost on both the performers and the audience if it fails to score and make its deadly presence known and felt. This was a true failing. Hopkins could have done this, and, indeed, he has done it before...Hannibal Lector is one of the classic movie villains, and Hopkins gave Lector that life and presence. One of the missed opportunities was witnessed in the boardroom when Drew--a very arrogant character--demanded to know just who Joe Black was and why he seemed to have a strangle-hold on Hopkins' character, Bill Parrish. The way the scene was handled, without giving away the identity and purpose of Joe Black was, at that critical moment, a big letdown...almost an act of cinematic cowardice on the part of the director. It really took the steam out of the sails. Plus...that character needed to be brought down a few notches, and Death would have been the ideal one to accomplish this...but it never really happened to my satisfaction. It was one of the most dis-appointing moments of the movie, a real low. This movie had the potential to be something far more than what it wound up being. Maybe someone might try it again, and there may be something of a more fluid flow of ideas...but the writers got stuck in the mud...the direction was wooden, stoic, not multi-directional and all encompassing. Because of this, the film implodes under the weight of its own imperfections. I really wanted to like this movie..and I expected more. I cannot recommend it very highly...and I would advise a watching of the Fredric March version to get a real feel of what is going on before you tread the murky waters of "Meet Joe Black".