Review of Sideways (2004) by Cameron J — 12 Feb 2012

Forget sideways, this world is upside down! Seriously, I'm supposed to believe that Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church would ever have a chance with Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh? Granted, I'm not big on Asian girls like the rest of the world is for some stupid reason, and Sandra Oh's not even that terribly attractive by Asian standards, yet she is still above and beyond Church's league, and even if he is Mr. Sandman, there no bringing him that dream. Okay, he's not that bad-looking of a dude, but believe it or not, I actually think that Giamatti has a better chance with women than Church, because women dig a man with authority, and as funky as this guy looks, he was still President John Adams, and the Chief Inspector in "The Illusionist", and a sergeant in "Saving Private Ryan"... and the control room director in "The Truman Show"... and Jim Braddock's coach in "Cinderella Man"... and Santa Claus. Wow, this guy is everyone's boss, which is good, because lord knows that he can't play strapping, handsome leading man; it's the Danny DeVito Principle. Hey, I don't care if they get him to drop the funky-looking everyman lead roles that he so often goes for, slap a Fabio wig on him and name him "Handsomest Man Alive", because I'll probably still buy it based on his charisma alone, because, if nothing else, he's one charming son of a gun. Still, not even he can charm this film's flaws away.

Now, after learning that this didn't have all of the narrated overdevelopment, I found myself really relieved that Alexander Payne was going off formula... until Warren Schmidt got his road trip when I was watching "About Schmidt", at which point I realized that, much like Al Pacino - whom Alex Payne looks somewhat similar to -, just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in. No, I'm kidding; it's a stretch to call this film formulaic, simply because our leads go on a road trip like Jack Nicholson did in "About Schmidt", just like it's a stretch to call this film formulaic, simply because it's slow like "About Schmidt". Still, that doesn't make the slowness any less of a flaw, and sure, that slowness only comes in here and there, but when it does arrive, things dull down quite a bit. Still, that I can get over, but what I have a harder time getting over are the long periods of nothing. Sure, there are only a handful of scenes that are entirely nothing, as in superfluous, as in unnecessary - for all of you who don't feel like looking up the definition to superfluous -, but there is still enough of those cuttable moments to pad things out a little too much, and even plenty of moments that aren't entirely cuttable still go on a little too long. This slows the film down, and while I'm not prepared to say that a tighter product would even meet the praise that the rest of the world is laying upon this film, tightness would make it a better film, nevertheless. However, just because I said that it's hard to get past the looseness, that doesn't mean that it made the film unwatchable, because for all of its missteps, this is still Alexander Payne all but at his sharpest, not just as director, but as writer.

Okay, in all honesty, allow me to pull back on my proclamation that this is an Alex Payne and Jim Taylor script all but at its sharpest, because it's a little too short on the "Payne Punch-Up", but Payne's and Taylor's usual charm is here and pretty darn sharp, a every time the film slows down, that charm picks it back up over and over again until, finally, the dramatic aspects uravel. At that point, things really fall into perspective, and while there's a dry eye on, at least "my" side of the spectrum, I still found myself genuinely moved by the deep humanity and emotion in this tale. For this, you know who we have to thanks, and that is, of course, as well as know, the cinematographer. Sure, the brightness of the cinematography gets to be too intense for its own good, but when you get used to it all, feel free to enjoy a handsome style that matches the film's tone of liveliness combined with deep artistry. Okay, the cinematography isn't that upstanding, but what is worth noting are the performances and chemistry between Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church. Church's Jack Cole character is that real life dirtbag that's willing to do some low-down dirty stuff to simply cut loose, but still means well, which isn't to say that he can completely get away with his dark intentions, and Church's ability to dance around that fine line between charming everyman and dirtbag with such ease really gets you on the edge of your seat, especially when he's interacting with Giamatti's disapproving, but still too naive Miles Raymond character. However, it's not just comradery with the Jack Cole character that sells the Miles Raymond character; you're going to need an actor that can really pull off Raymond as his own character, and Paul Giamatti does just that, delivering on the charisma broken up by subtle emotion to bring the charm, as well as the struggles of Raymond to life, and it's Giamatti's performance, perhaps more than anything, that truly keeps this film afloat and makes it an ultimately rewarding venture.

Overall, the slow spots are damaging enough, let alone when it's topped off with sequences that are either superfluous or purposeful, but just too blasted long, yet what keeps this trip worth sitting through is Alexander Payne's charming, when not touching execution of his and Jim Taylor's pretty slick screenplay, which is still carried, most of all, by the sharp comradery and genuinely human performances between Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church, both of whom do the most in pouring a fine glass of the charm broken up by the heart that makes "Sideways" the thoroughly enjoyable, worth-having experience that it ultimately is.

3/5 - Good.