|
Diamond
Men
Directed By: Dan
Cohen (III) Plot Summary - DAVE - STEVE - CURRENT REVIEWS - MAIN PAGE |
|
|
With Robert
Forster as a diamond salesman whose journey into retirement includes love,
crime and unexpected twists. This movie is an exercise in brilliant execution. The plot is somewhat standard: An aging diamond salesman is going to be replaced. His health is causing problems with insurance and the company finds it easier merely to cut him off. In response, he convinces them to keep him on just a brief while to teach the new salesman. Together, these two hit the road, learn a bit about each other, about sex, about love, and form a strong bond. What impressed me the most was exactly what Ebert mentioned in his review--a constant refusal to be pigeonholed as a genre piece. Diamond Men keeps, as Ebert says, "reinventing itself." It is not merely an odd couple movie, as it appears to be in its first scenes. Yes, there are jokes about the old sales guy vs. the new sales guy, but the film does not wind down and die there. It has more. For instance, the new guy tries to get the old guy a woman. They end up at a "massage parlor," and the aging salesman's loyalty to his old wife is questioned. Things at this massage parlor do not go quite as planned, and emotions become a factor. These emotions then lead to a scene of crime and a final twist so unexpected and delightfully giddy that the entire film is the worth that moment--as one audience member's brain after another realizes the filmmaker's deception. So, while the story is nothing new--the way the film goes about telling it surely is. We find ourselves watching a scene about sex with a hooker, and honestly do not know what is going to happen nor how the film got here from a scene of playful banter between two guys fifteen minutes earlier. I respected the film for the fine performance of Robert Forrester, an aging actor who nearly disappeared from the scene until Quentin Tarantino's "Jackie Brown," but then came back with films such as this. His salesman is a great character, and the way this film unfolds, engaging debates that no one expects, is a marvel to behold. This is the kind of the film that would never win best picture, but should be up for best screenplay. THE DISCUSSION The discussion featured Forester, who I mentioned above, and the film's writer. I was delighted--the two people who were most responsible for the film's success. The discussion stayed pretty typical. Forester detailed his journey from audio books back into mainstream stardom, and the writer talked of this indie film's insane schedule. It was only an 18 day shoot (note: most films take 3-6 months), and many of the scenes, with these two salesman on the road, took place in cars, where the director, cinematographer and sound guy had to crouch down in the back seat to make sure the take was successful. Very humorous. I can just image five grown men crammed into a car attempting to make a film in only 18 days! They also talked quite a bit about the move industry and how quickly success can decline or return. I enjoyed the bashing of the industry's screening processes, which exclude older audiences, and how studios are willing to compromise even depressing nonfiction material to accomodate the reactions of test audiences. These people knew the process, made Diamond Men in an attempt to get above the sludge of mainstream Hollywood, and held no punches when it came to discussing that which they despise. Also, Forester, which as I said has had a rebirth in recent years, looked fantastic and was incredibly appreciative of his Academy Award-nominated role in Jackie Brown. He described Quentin's offer of the role, the importance that has played in this second half of his life, and said it is "one of the greatest gifts you can give." For this movie alone, thank god for Quentin Tarantino. He has resurrected so many fine actors, made so many enjoyable films, and, much like the works of David Fincher (Fight Club) and Baz Luhrman (Moulin Rouge), encouraged outside directors to pursue their individual styles. |
MOVIE WEB PAGE LINKS
TO REVIEWS IMDB WEB PAGE MOVIE REVIEW QUERY ENGINE Showtimes |
|
Diamond
Men's characters where real, and their situations real, although the movie
may be part of a tired plot that's been told countless times before. It
followed the younger inexpierenced salesman as he learns from the older
one. They both learn something about each other. However, that said, I can't
seem to hold any of those things against the film. The characters miraculously
seemed to have depth, and the story line didn't exist solely for a storyline,
it was an entity unto itself. Diamond Men was a character piece. A uniquely interesting piece that was also fun to ride along on. The movie is not meant to be the think pieces that we find from most indie films. It's doesn't really offer anything insightful into life itself. It's a good entertaining, well executed film done by expierenced talented moviemakers. This weekend has in fact exposed the different ways movies can be good, and how difficult it is to compare the films. The great films aren't as hard to identify, they do everything well, and have few flaws. However, the good movies are hard to judge. Is it better for a film to discuss something intelluctual or entertain. And which is more important. No movie can become a great film without doing both, however, can a movie that is simply exceptionally entertaining be a very good film? And can a cerebral film become a good film without being entertaining. Regardless of my own little debate, this film was entertaing. It was a good movie. Perhaps not a great movie, but a good movie. And certainly overlooked since I hadn't heard a thing about it. |
|
|
Movies
@ Zertinet | Oscars @ Zertinet
| Main Site Best Viewed
at 800 X 600 or greater |
|