Almost certain to be a crowd pleaser—especially with the 55-plus audience at which it’s aimed with all the tact of one of those AARP mailings that begin with “Dear Senior Citizen”—Rob Reiner’s The Bucket List is nonetheless one of the most contrived, formula-ridden, shamelessly manipulative explosions of stacked-deck writing, star-indulgent schmaltz it’s ever been my lot to suffer through. Everything about it is as tiresomely phony as the Polident-ad grins on Messrs. Nicholson and Freeman festooning the movie’s posters. Worse, it confirms one of my greatest fears: that Morgan Freeman is fully capable of narrating movies from beyond the grave.
Don’t get me wrong, both Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman are fine actors capable of doing great things on the screen. Unfortunately, neither have had occasion to do so of late, being largely stuck in the rut of Mephistopheles Jack and wiser-than-God (except when he’s actually playing God) Morgan. This is more of the same with bells on.
The high-concept premise—courtesy of screenwriter Justin Zackham (the last syllable of his name has great meaning here)—finds self-absorbed, filthy rich, hedonistic businessman Edward Cole (Nicholson) falling prey to his company’s own rules about his hospitals: two beds in each room, no exceptions. So when brain cancer comes a-calling, Edward finds himself bunking with another cancer patient, Carter Chambers (Freeman), a wise old auto mechanic with a stockpile of useless information for anyone but Jeopardy contestants and Trivial Pursuit addicts.
Screenwriting 101 dictates that they won’t like each other, and they don’t (Edward offensively dubs Carter “zombie boy” for no explicable reason). This, of course, merely paves the way to a curmudgeonly friendship—let’s call it gruff love—that finds full flower in Edward’s decision to play fairy grim reaper and help his working-stiff buddy complete his “bucket list.” The “bucket list,” you see, is something Carter’s “old philosophy professor” cooked up—a list of things you want to do before you kick the bucket. (With professors like this, it’s clear why Carter spent his life fixing cars and talking back at Alex Trebek.) With precious little concern over deserting his wife (Beverly Todd, Crash) and family, Carter heads off on this quasi-spiritual road trip with his well-heeled buddy—kind of like Bing and Bob on life support without Dotty Lamour.
The list itself is an uninspired concoction of the relatively mundane—racing muscle cars, skydiving, seeing the Taj Mahal etc.—and the pretentiously vague—“laugh till you cry,” “witness something truly majestic” etc. All of these are easily within the grasp of anyone with the wherewithal to have the CGI folks paste our heroes’ heads on real skydivers or position them in front of a barely credible computer-generated Taj Mahal. None of the events are particularly convincing as either actual occurrences or life-altering ones. The latter, one supposes, is meant to be conveyed by the Morgan Freeman words of avuncular wisdom (patent pending). Of course, it’s all meant to lead to enlightenment and those life lessons so beloved by Hollywood in high-minded mode.
The film is geared to the forced humanization of the Edward Cole character after a “big” falling-out scene (where Nicholson sounds alarmingly like Sylvester the Cat) that will pave the way for Edward finally realizing what the “important things” in life really are and that they have no price tag. It’s a pretty strange conclusion for a movie that completely hinges on ol’ Ed having more money than God, but we’re not supposed to notice that. And anyway, Edward’s largesse earns him remission for his sins (‘fess up, Mr. Zackham, you really like the ending of the 1932 If I Had a Million, don’t you?) and a higher coffee can in heaven. I’m fully aware that a lot of people will eat this movie up and ask for seconds, but all I see is contrivance, typical ham-handed Rob Reiner direction and two good actors drowning in treacle. Rated PG-13 for language, including a sexual reference.
Man I can’t wait to see this one.
marc
Why, Marc, I’m sure something could be arranged.
Ken: What is the name of the coffee that Edward just loves and turns out to be digested cat fesces? I want to get a pound for a friend!
Tom
Oh, Lord, I don’t remember, but I knew where the joke was going because someone at what used to be (?) Gold Hill told me about this stuff ages ago, though I’d remembered it as being something large cats had sprayed (not especially more appetizing). If memory serves, you probably won’t want to invest in a pound of it (it was astronomically expensive), but someone at one of the more exclusive coffee places might know exactly what it is.
Thanks for ripping this movie, Ken. My wife wanted to see this movie and, based upon what you said about it on Matt’s show one Friday, I went in with low expectations. The movie turned out to be one of the best movies I’ve seen for the last few years.
Ken, you may be what Rex Reed was to my brother, but I’m not sure, yet. If Rex liked a movie, my brother knew he would hate it, and vice-versa.
i cant remember the exact name of the coffee, something like copi luah…i have no clue how to spell it though..I loved the movie, and am considering writing my own bucket list!
“Ken, you may be what Rex Reed was to my brother, but I’m not sure, yet. If Rex liked a movie, my brother knew he would hate it, and vice-versa.”
Well, you’ll have to wait and see, but no one’s ever a perfect barometer either way — not even Rex Reed. Everyone’s bound to like something you do sooner or later and everyone’s bound to hate something you like.
I noted that this was almost certain to be crowd-pleaser, but for me it’s just as phony as your proverbial three dollar bill — for the reasons stated in the review. Though it doesn’t prove anything, I was downright kind to this movie compared to Roger Ebert.
Ken, I just don’t understand you. I just saw this movie. IT WAS EXCELLENT! Well acted by Nicholson and Freeman. Well directed by Rob Reiner. I may see it a second time.
People, do not let Ken’s critique keep you from seeing this. IT IS AN EXCELLENT MOVIE. Ken all I can say is your tastes are not the same as mine, probably 80% of the time. After the fun you’ve poked at the “polident set”, etc, on this one, I doubt I’ll ever pay attention to a review of yours again.
My feeling for some time now is that you, Ken, are too jaded to be able to objectively review, or enjoy, a movie. Yes I do not understand how you can pan this flick, yet sing the praises of “Song for Bethany” and “Pink Flamingos”. Wow, we sure see things differently.
Oops, I got the “local” movie title wrong. It is “Dance for Bethany”. The WORST movie I have ever seen. Yet you, Ken, gave it 3 and a half stars? HUH? Please explain the difference here. I am curious how Bethany can get 3 and half stars, yet you give a superb movie like Bucket only 2? I guess everything really is subjective, even amongst the ‘educated’ movie reviewers.
According to about.com, the coffee is Kopi Luwak and it comes from the Indonesian island of Sumatra. A small civet-like animal called a luwaks eats the coffee cherries, bean and all. While the bean is in the little guy’s stomach, it undergoes chemical treatments and fermentations. The bean finishes its journey through the digestive system, and exits. The still-intact beans are collected from the forest floor, and are cleaned, then roasted and ground just like any other coffee.
The resulting coffee is said to be like no other. It has a rich, heavy flavour with hints of caramel or chocolate. Other terms used to describe it are earthy, musty and exotic.
“Earthy, musty, and exotic”? No doubt!
“My feeling for some time now is that you, Ken, are too jaded to be able to objectively review, or enjoy, a movie. Yes I do not understand how you can pan this flick, yet sing the praises of “Song for Bethany” and “Pink Flamingos”.”
Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned, THE BUCKET LIST is glossy, manipulative, phony trash. I’d be more concerned about my views — maybe — if they were really out of the critical mainstream. If you’ll look on Rotten Tomatoes you’ll see that 80 out of 137 reviewers felt the same about it — or worse.
This is typical of you, though — if I don’t agree with you, I’m outside the norm. Do you honestly believe that your thoughts and tastes define the norm? What IS the norm anyway? And why does it matter?
And this PINK FLAMINGOS and DANCE FOR BETHANY business that you default to every 10 minutes…really. First of all, I have never “sung the praises” of A DANCE FOR BETHANY. Try, oh, I don’t know, reading the review rather than fixating on the stupid star rating. Then maybe you’d grasp what I really said and why I said it.
As for my “fondness” for PINK FLAMINGOS, that’s entirely grounded in its transgressive nature. I’d never even call it a good movie. It’s crudely made and parts of it drag badly. It’s hardly a favorite of mine — not even on my 100 favorites list (and neither is GONE WITH THE WIND). But the driving concept behind PINK FLAMINGOS was to shock, outrage and offend the viewer. Considering that it’s 36 years old and is still your barometer for offensiveness, it must be nothing short of wildly successful. In fact, it’s had for more impact on you than it ever had on me.
Ken you make my point discussing WHY you like Pink Flamingos. It is “transgressive”. That bent of yours is what earns you my descriptor of “artsy-lefty”. Something is noteworthy just because it upsets the Ozzie and Harriett set? Please. And telling me to read the review rather than rely on the stars given is a bit of acop out. If you pan using words, the stars should reflect that.
You not having Gone With The Wind on your top 100 list is no surprise to me, considering your artsy-lefty, “pseudo-highbrow”, take on what is art. You probably rate “Triumph of the Will” highly because it is upsetting to traditional American values.
Ken, I am right on that you are “jaded” as a movie viewer. You cannot view a film like the average audience member because you see so many of them, and are locked into the artsy-lefty bias on what is “good” and what isn’t. I guess that is an occupational hazard?
I don’t know how you will treat “Leatherheads”. But I will see it regardless, if nothing more than to feast my eyes on Rene Z and the bulldog. I’ll give you my review after the screening. :)
“Ken you make my point discussing WHY you like Pink Flamingos. It is “transgressive”. That bent of yours is what earns you my descriptor of “artsy-lefty”. Something is noteworthy just because it upsets the Ozzie and Harriett set? Please”
No, I “like” it (appreciate it is nearer the mark) because it effectively does what it set out to do — and part of what it does is upset the status quo, which is never a bad thing, if only because it prevents stagnation.
“And telling me to read the review rather than rely on the stars given is a bit of acop out. If you pan using words, the stars should reflect that.”
No, it’s no cop-out at all. It merely reflects the inherent shortcomings of the whole star rating business. If you honestly think the four stars that you find on all movies with a four star rating makes those movies equal, that’s pretty ridiculous. Do you mean to tell me that you choose movies based on the no. of stars they’re given? I could have sworn that you said you were immune to the opinions of critics altogether. So are you saying that my rating of A DANCE FOR BETHANY suckered you into seeing it? And if it didn’t and you want to take issue with what I said, you might at least have the courtesy to actually read what I wrote rather than falsely claiming that I “praised” it, when I didn’t. (For your information, 3 1/2 stars is not praise on a 5 star scale.)
“You probably rate “Triumph of the Will” highly because it is upsetting to traditional American values.”
While it’s a film that — for technical reasons — is on a lot best lists, no, I hate to disappoint you, it’s not on mine. Better luck next jab.
“Ken, I am right on that you are “jaded” as a movie viewer. You cannot view a film like the average audience member because you see so many of them, and are locked into the artsy-lefty bias on what is “good” and what isn’t.”
I am no more locked in by my biases — probably a good deal less so — than you are by your notions of “poPulist” art and your ability to think you know what “average audiences” will like. And when I pan a film that I suspect will appeal to a lot of people, I tend to make note of that fact.
“I don’t know how you will treat “Leatherheads”.”
I don’t either, because I haven’t seen it. I do, however, like George Clooney and have given five star reviews to his other directorial efforts, CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND and GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK.
Ken, you are “not locked into your biases”? No way Nagurski. I am a “populist”? LOL, you just made my point when I describe you are an elitist, “highbrow” artsy-lefty person. Ken, there is an old saw about artists and their critics. I goes something like this: those that can create art, do; those who cannot, criticize.
:)
I did not see Dance for Bethany because of your review. I saw it because I got free tickets from a friend who works at the Citizen-Times. In fact, I rarely read a review before seeing a flick. I usually go by feel, and the actors-director involved. That served me well with “The Bucket List”. It was an uncommonly good movie. I may even take another friend and see it a second time. if that makes me a “populist”, then so be it. You are an elitist, and that keeps you from full appreciation of good entertainment…sometimes.
“Ken, you are “not locked into your biases”?”
You sure do cherry pick with the best of them, don’t you? That’s only part of what I said, which was “I am no more locked in by my biases — probably a good deal less so — than you are by your notions of ‘populist’ art and your ability to think you know what ‘average audiences’ will like.” Nothing about that says I don’t have biases. Everyone does.
“LOL, you just made my point when I describe you are an elitist, “highbrow” artsy-lefty person.”
I really have difficulty taking anything that includes “LOL” or “OMG,” etc. that seriously. But really, what point is that you think I’ve made for you? You’re very keen on making anti-intellectual remarks, sneering at things that are “highbrow,” dismissing things as “artsy” (“lefty” isn’t necessarily related to these things, so I’ll leave that out). It would seem then that you view your tastes as populist.
“Ken, there is an old saw about artists and their critics. I goes something like this: those that can create art, do; those who cannot, criticize”
And those who can do neither criticize the critics?
“I did not see Dance for Bethany because of your review. I saw it because I got free tickets from a friend who works at the Citizen-Times.”
So why are you cheesed with me over the whole thing? You should be mad at the friend or the C-T, it seems. At the very least, I maintain you need to read what I said before saying I “praised” a movie in a review that notes the accomplishment of getting any movie on this level of production made, but then goes on to say that it’s “corny and contrived,” that it’s unpersuasive and melodramatic, and finally that it’s worth the attention of anyone interested in the local filmmaking scene. That’s not exactly praise.
I loved the movie. Just enough humor to keep it from being maudlin, and just enough pathos to make me think. I will watch it again soon.
I hope Nicholson makes another picture soon. He’s getting on a bit and I would hate for this to have been his swan song.