This movie is just your basic, sappy, pathetically romantic boy-meets-leopard story. You know the type. If you've ever been around a person who's in love with a dangerous predator, I don't have to tell you how annoying it is to be around them; those "subtle" googly-eyed looks they keep throwing at each other are just a little more than most of us can take. Sadly, this movie is just more of the same. I mean, don't get me wrong. We've all been there. Who can resist the shy, flirtatious glance of a large spotty beast? I mean, we're only human. I'm not saying I'm in any position to judge.
But as tragic as this love affair ends up, it's a little hard to sympathize with the guy. I mean, get a clue. Most of us are smart enough to limit our love interests to members of our own species. It's kind of a common sense thing. Dating a man-eater is just asking for trouble. I haven't even had a lot of dating experience, but I can tell you that much, right off the bat. I mean, seriously, am I wrong? Doesn't it always end up the same? There's a misunderstanding, someone gets hurt, and before either one lets down his guard enough to show a little empathy or forgiveness, one of them is lying in a pool of his own blood. It's sad. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the director of the film. She had some extra time on her hands and decided to adapt a short story by Balzac to the big screen. Sure, why not?
Problem #1: The short story was written by a guy named Honore de Balzac. Hello, people. Who names their kid Honore? It almost sounds French, for pete's sake. His parents were probably pretty wacked-out and maybe they thought if they gave him a French name it would make him seem really smart or something. As if the name Balzac weren't bad enough by itself. He had to have been beat up a lot as a kid, and it's no wonder he ended up with a twisted mind. Let's consider the source here. But that's not even the biggest problem.
Problem #2: It's not like the Balzac story starts out "Once upon a time there was this man, and he met an attractive leopard." I mean, it starts out pretty dang normal. It's just this random guy talking to this random lady. Then the random guy decides to haul off and tell her this wacked-out beastly love story that he'd heard from some other guy a few days ago.
Problem #3: The guy he'd heard it from was DRUNK at the time. Okay, we know that Balzac was twisted and wacked-out. But he did have enough sense to know that man/leopard love stories are generally a little hard to swallow. He didn't expect us to believe it, for crying out loud. He sure as heck didn't expect us to repeat it to anyone. All he was trying to say is that drunk people sometimes tell wacked-out stories. I think we can accept that. I think most of us can agree with that observation. And the random guy who heard the story by the drunk guy, and then told it to this random lady, was probably drunk, too. We don't know that he wasn't. We don't have any evidence that he wasn't drunk, or schizo, or just totally wacked. He might have totally changed the guy's story and made it even more twisted and wacky, just for fun. Maybe the random lady he told it to was really twisted and weird, and she liked to hear wacky, twisted stories. Maybe that's how they got their thrills, by telling perverted wacky stories to each other. It could happen.
Problem #4: The short story by Balzac, like most short stories, is short. Movies, including this one, are around 90 minutes long. Fortunately, there is a lot of sand in Jordan to fill in the inevitably long empty spaces. But it would have been better if Currier, instead of making a full-length movie, had made a 30-minute blurb about a drunk guy telling wacked-out stories. It would have been more interesting.
Problem #5: The guy who told the story (the one that was DRUNK) was an old Napoleonic veteran who had severe sun-stroke. At least, I bet he did. He was drunk, and he was telling a story about something that happened to him maybe 40 years ago while he was lost in a sweltering desert without food or water and only a lot of sand to look at for weeks. Get a clue. As if anyone who heard him tell this wacky story was going to be like, "Wow, did that really happen?", unless they were drunk too. I mean let's get a clue, people.
Problem #6: The guy, who was drunk, told this wacked-out story soon after watching a show by a wild animal tamer. Gee. I wonder where he got the idea for this twisted, wacked-out story about a wild animal. If he had just come out of a bingo game, he would have made up a totally different wacky story, like maybe about how he had built a national monument out of bingo cards in a desert, or something like that. And then some weird twisted wacko would have made a movie based on that, maybe.
Come on, people. This is what happens when you try to make a movie out of a story that was written by a wacky guy named Honore, about an old drunk guy telling a twisted, weird story. Let's think about this for a minute.
Now don't get me wrong, because I think Balzac was a genius. He knew some twisted person would try to make a movie out of his story some day. Prove to me that he didn't. I'd like to see you try to prove it to me. He had to know that some twisted weirdo would make a movie based on his short story and that it would be so looney that it would make him look like a freaking genius, by comparison. That's the only reason he would have written something like this.
And that's what I like most about Balzac. Oh, yeah, he was twisted, all right. We've established that fact. But he wasn't a total wacko or anything. That's one of the things I like about Honore de Balzac. He was pretty smart. He probably thought about making movies, but decided that writing stories would just be better. You have to give him that much, anyway.
But the movie ... well, let's just say it was pretty wacked-out.
But as tragic as this love affair ends up, it's a little hard to sympathize with the guy. I mean, get a clue. Most of us are smart enough to limit our love interests to members of our own species. It's kind of a common sense thing. Dating a man-eater is just asking for trouble. I haven't even had a lot of dating experience, but I can tell you that much, right off the bat. I mean, seriously, am I wrong? Doesn't it always end up the same? There's a misunderstanding, someone gets hurt, and before either one lets down his guard enough to show a little empathy or forgiveness, one of them is lying in a pool of his own blood. It's sad. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against the director of the film. She had some extra time on her hands and decided to adapt a short story by Balzac to the big screen. Sure, why not?
Problem #1: The short story was written by a guy named Honore de Balzac. Hello, people. Who names their kid Honore? It almost sounds French, for pete's sake. His parents were probably pretty wacked-out and maybe they thought if they gave him a French name it would make him seem really smart or something. As if the name Balzac weren't bad enough by itself. He had to have been beat up a lot as a kid, and it's no wonder he ended up with a twisted mind. Let's consider the source here. But that's not even the biggest problem.
Problem #2: It's not like the Balzac story starts out "Once upon a time there was this man, and he met an attractive leopard." I mean, it starts out pretty dang normal. It's just this random guy talking to this random lady. Then the random guy decides to haul off and tell her this wacked-out beastly love story that he'd heard from some other guy a few days ago.
Problem #3: The guy he'd heard it from was DRUNK at the time. Okay, we know that Balzac was twisted and wacked-out. But he did have enough sense to know that man/leopard love stories are generally a little hard to swallow. He didn't expect us to believe it, for crying out loud. He sure as heck didn't expect us to repeat it to anyone. All he was trying to say is that drunk people sometimes tell wacked-out stories. I think we can accept that. I think most of us can agree with that observation. And the random guy who heard the story by the drunk guy, and then told it to this random lady, was probably drunk, too. We don't know that he wasn't. We don't have any evidence that he wasn't drunk, or schizo, or just totally wacked. He might have totally changed the guy's story and made it even more twisted and wacky, just for fun. Maybe the random lady he told it to was really twisted and weird, and she liked to hear wacky, twisted stories. Maybe that's how they got their thrills, by telling perverted wacky stories to each other. It could happen.
Problem #4: The short story by Balzac, like most short stories, is short. Movies, including this one, are around 90 minutes long. Fortunately, there is a lot of sand in Jordan to fill in the inevitably long empty spaces. But it would have been better if Currier, instead of making a full-length movie, had made a 30-minute blurb about a drunk guy telling wacked-out stories. It would have been more interesting.
Problem #5: The guy who told the story (the one that was DRUNK) was an old Napoleonic veteran who had severe sun-stroke. At least, I bet he did. He was drunk, and he was telling a story about something that happened to him maybe 40 years ago while he was lost in a sweltering desert without food or water and only a lot of sand to look at for weeks. Get a clue. As if anyone who heard him tell this wacky story was going to be like, "Wow, did that really happen?", unless they were drunk too. I mean let's get a clue, people.
Problem #6: The guy, who was drunk, told this wacked-out story soon after watching a show by a wild animal tamer. Gee. I wonder where he got the idea for this twisted, wacked-out story about a wild animal. If he had just come out of a bingo game, he would have made up a totally different wacky story, like maybe about how he had built a national monument out of bingo cards in a desert, or something like that. And then some weird twisted wacko would have made a movie based on that, maybe.
Come on, people. This is what happens when you try to make a movie out of a story that was written by a wacky guy named Honore, about an old drunk guy telling a twisted, weird story. Let's think about this for a minute.
Now don't get me wrong, because I think Balzac was a genius. He knew some twisted person would try to make a movie out of his story some day. Prove to me that he didn't. I'd like to see you try to prove it to me. He had to know that some twisted weirdo would make a movie based on his short story and that it would be so looney that it would make him look like a freaking genius, by comparison. That's the only reason he would have written something like this.
And that's what I like most about Balzac. Oh, yeah, he was twisted, all right. We've established that fact. But he wasn't a total wacko or anything. That's one of the things I like about Honore de Balzac. He was pretty smart. He probably thought about making movies, but decided that writing stories would just be better. You have to give him that much, anyway.
But the movie ... well, let's just say it was pretty wacked-out.
Tell Your Friends