C-Biscuit

Rating: Null/10 (24 July 2003)

C - Biscuit
Like millions of cinephiles, I decry the usual Summer movie fare cursing the multiplex mentality and head for the "art theatres" hoping that, baring seeing anything actually interesting, I'll at least get to see a Rubenesque foreign women sans clothing rather than the latest runway model some James Cameron wannabe has cast in his latest opus. But once in a while, even at the chains, a film comes along that looks genuinely promising. A film that has real talent and what, at least on the surface, would appear to be real heart behind it.
Gary Ross, known, in some circles anyway, for his hackneyed re-writes on such Hollywood pap as The Flintstones and Inspector Gadget, once in a while surfaces to try and make up for having sold his soul to Studio Execs. His last directorial effort was Pleasantville. With an elongated second act that squeezed every last bit of footage out of the B&W-to-color gimmick, it still managed to provide a foundation on which Joan Allen and William H. Macy could turn in some A-game performances
This time Ross rears his salt-and-pepper all over head to bring us Seabiscuit. Perhaps I should have sensed trouble when I discovered he turned to this Depression Era horseracing story only after Universal sent his Jim Carrey/Nicole Kidman Ghost rip-off to an early grave. Or when he fought tooth and nail to have Charlie Mitchell's name removed (Charlie did a previous draft which my sources say Ross borrowed heavily from) so that he would receive sole credit - (interesting how Mitchell's name suddenly disappeared from the film's credits on various movie databases).
But still, I figured Seabicuit would be a beacon in the summer s**t storm
No such luck. Gary's most ambitious directing attempt to date (out of 2) leaves the audience wanting more. Or perhaps less, as Ross tries a bit too hard to be too faithful the source material - no doubt hoping to avoid following in the footsteps of his 1949 predecessor David Butler. The result however is more docu-drama than narrative film. More a glimpse into, rather than a guide through, a certain time in American history. But true story or not, the subject matter is reminiscent of a fairytale and Ross' overly researched fascination with the Depression undermines this and is all too evident, as our famed horse doesn't rear his long face until almost an hour into the film. I thought this was a story about a racehorse.
Like Pleasantville, Ross has rounded out his cast with gifted performers who turn in moderately worthwhile performances. I even once again accepted Tobey's goofy thousand-yard stare as real acting, although even with his Spider Man physique still intact, I'm not sure I buy him as a prizefighter. Bridges brings the same genial oddball-next-door charm to this role that he did to Tucker, and from Cooper's character we get exactly what we'd expect - a quietly intense, wounded by inner demons kind of profundity that may take up too much screen time but is nonetheless admirably portrayed.
But when you reach for a star, there's a long way to fall, and Ross' self indulgent attentiveness to detail and cut-n-paste, molasses-in-January-slow first act pushes the viewer right out of the picture and the attempt to reign (get it? - reign) us back in is too little too late. Gary's overly didactic style (complete with B&W photgraphs) had me thinking I was back in high school history class. Is it a reprieve from Charlie's Angels 2? Not as much as one would hope - I did say history class. Do I feel any better spending ten dollars on Seabiscuit than I did on T3? Absolutely not.