Sundance 2011: LIKE CRAZY Review

by     Posted 3 years, 181 days ago

like_crazy_movie_image_anton_yelchin_felicity_jones_slice_01

We should be able to relate to movies on an emotional level, but that connection shouldn’t be contingent solely on an individual’s personal experience.  Like Crazy works, but only in a manipulative fashion that preys on the viewer’s nostalgia of young love.  While lead actors Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones give solid performances, the love between their characters is left as vague as possible so that the viewer can project their own feelings onto the picture.  If thoughts of your first love make your heart skip a beat, Like Crazy will likely send you reeling.  If, however, you’re like me and aren’t impressed by watching other people deal with their relationship issues, Like Crazy will leave you cold.

The film charts the relationship between Jacob (Yelchin) and Anna (Jones).  The two meet while in college in Los Angeles and through one of the film’s many, many montages (a lazy narrative shortcut that substitutes for showing genuine development of their romance) we see them fall in love and then the film’s major conflict arises: Anna has to go back to England before her student visa expires.  However, because the two are so in love, they decide that bucking U.S. immigration law isn’t that big of a deal.  Anna returns to England for a wedding, but when she tries to re-enter the U.S., she discovers that the U.S. Immigration is determined to stop terrorists, halt illegal immigrants, and kill burgeoning romances.  Anna and Jacob are then forced to confront how to continue to their relationship despite being an ocean apart.

Anton-Yelchin-Felicity-Jones-Like-Crazy-movie-image

Writer-director Drake Doremus uses plenty of visual flourishes to spruce up the narrative, but they rarely emphasize the drama.  It’s difficult to care about Jacob and Anna because they’re so poorly defined.  They both like Paul Simon, he designs furniture, she’s a writer, and that’s about it.  It’s a bare minimum of development because the film invites the viewer to see himself or herself in Jacob and Anna, and that’s a cheap trick.  If you find yourself caring about these characters, it’s most likely because you care about yourself and how your personal experience relates to the broad outline of theirs.

Yelchin and Jones give good performances, but Doremus constantly overshadows them with look-at-me editing and cinematography.  This is a character-driven film, but Doremus seems reluctant to give the film over to his actors.  The camera is like a voyeur with ADD and rarely sits still long enough to give Yelchin and Jones and chance to shine.  That’s a major disappointment since I’m a tremendous fan of Yelchin and I felt like he could have really delivered a powerhouse performance if the camera and editing actually complimented his performance rather than competed with it.  As for Jones, I wasn’t familiar with her until this movie, but her work here has definitely put the young actress on my radar.

Felicity-Jones-Like-Crazy-movie-image

The pain and yearning of young love is a widely-experienced, but not universal.  Like Crazy only works as far as you’re able to project your own life on to it.  That’s not the film’s accomplishment.  That’s your accomplishment and Like Crazy wants to steal it and take your lived-in emotions as its own.

Rating: D+

For all of our coverage of the 2011 Sundance Film Festival, click here. Also, here are links to all of my Sundance reviews so far:




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • JohnQ

    Just because you’ve never been on a date, Matt, doesn’t mean the movie sucked…all the other reviews coming out of Sundance have been raves.

    • DS

      Matt’s not allowed to have an opinion? Let’s not try and dictate how someone should feel about a movie just because scores of others didn’t feel the same way.

  • Pingback: PAGE ONE: A YEAR INSIDE THE NEW YORK TIMES Review

  • Pingback: REAGAN Review

  • Pingback: FLYPAPER Review

  • WV

    I agree completely with the review. In the Q&A, the director said that the film reflected a “mature” look into relationships, and I felt it was totally the opposite. The device for ending the film was sophomoric. I felt like I’ve seen this movie over and over again in real life, chick flicks, even noticed a similarity to Sex and the City when Carrie loses her necklace in Paris…and this won the director’s award? There is a prinicple in art that when drawing or painting figures, the artist subconsciously depicts himself..and just looking at the director and the leading man, it suggests (to me, at least) the movie was a bit of a spoiled indulgence.

  • DL

    Some might find that allowing an audience to project their experiences and relate to it because of that is an accomplishment and not a failure. Not all films need to be expository. In fact, I would go as far to say it’s more difficult to filmmake in this non-expository form, yet make the audience nod in understanding.

  • Junierizzle

    I havent seen this movie. And Matt is entitled to his opinion. I just hate it when critics say “oh, this movie is trying to manipulate you to feel a certain way.” I dont think people say this anymore but it applies here, duh! All movies want you to feel a certain way. Some just do it better and in a more natural ways than others. If you dont like a movie then just say it.

  • Pingback: HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN Review

  • Pingback: LIKE CRAZY Movie Trailer

  • Pingback: LIKE CRAZY Movie Trailer

  • Pingback: Director Drake Doremus LIKE CRAZY Interview

  • Pingback: Top 5 Films of 2011 | Current Ground

Click Here