Review of Terms of Endearment (1983) by Cameron J — 04 Aug 2014

Before there was "As Good as It Gets", there was... "As Good as It Gets". James L. Brooke's always had this formula, even with this, his first film, so I guess he sure does love himself some romantic dramedies, which is cool, because he really knows how to make an uncommonly good one that will boom at the Oscars: just convince Jack Nicholson to be involved. Don't tell me that his name didn't play some part in getting this film eleven Oscar nominations, with five wins, including Best Picture, because as good as this film is, come on, it's still a rom-com. I'd imagine the main reason why Nicholson got involved was to prove that he hasn't been old for quite as long as Shirley MacLaine, as it's a little hard to believe that someone is, in fact, older than Jack Nicholson, even from where people were standing back in '83... as in 1983, not Nicholson's age at that time. His plan sort of backfired, because MaClaine looked pretty good back when she was 92-96, or however old she was when they finished this film. Man, maybe the critics liked this film so much because if a romantic comedy-drama is going to be 131 minutes long, then it better be good. Well, sure enough, Brooks knew the terms of endearment when it comes to making film like that, and yet, there are some things to challenge your patience.

The film's genuineness as a portrait on family dysfunction can be admired, and it can also be cursed for stressing the occasions in which that genuineness lapses, through melodramatics which may very well be rare, but are made so glaring by a certain sentimentality. James L. Brooks' direction is only sometimes short on realization in its juggling colorful fluff and touching dramatics, but when it does fall short, under the weight of abrasive direction and scoring, things really do cheese up more than they should in this generally refreshing romantic dramedy which still stands to be fresher. By transcending many rom-com-dram conventions, this film goes an almost great distance, ultimately held back a bit by its eventually succumbing to tropes which allow predictability to set in over a problematically lengthy course. I've joked and joked about it, but indeed, running 132 minutes, this film is too long, even to the point of being uneven, with time jumps and alternations between the leads' distinguished narratives, resulting in a sense of aimlessness, in spite of a sense of predictability. At the very least, the runtime just kind of wears you down after a while, as this film shouldn't be so long and predictable, largely because its story concept doesn't present enough material to sustain consistent momentum over the course of two hours and a quarter. Natural shortcomings threaten the reward value of this film as much as anything, and it's a miracle that the final product is able to stand its ground so solidly through all of the hiccups in inspiration and realization within dramatics, originality and pacing. Still, make no mistake, the final product rewards the patient, whose investment is shaken, partly because of the story concept, yet nevertheless well-secured, partly because of the story concept.

This story concept doesn't carry much of a sense of consequence to warrant a runtime of 132 minutes, and the storytellers sometimes try to compensate through melodramatics, but this film wouldn't be so rewarding if it didn't carry plenty of conceptual value as a study, not so much on the romance that many might want you believe this film thrives on, on a mother and a daughter's rocky relationships with each other and other loved ones as they come to terms with who they are. James L. Brooks' direction does plenty of justice to this potential through plenty of taste that is unusually genuine for films of this type, for although Brooks can get rather carried away with his sentimentality, through tight scene staging, Brooks keeps entertainment value consistent, while a touching play on Michael Gore's score and certain other aspects prove to be truly resonant. The film ought to try ones patience, but more than that, it keeps things pretty fun, when it doesn't move, and for that, credit is due to Brooks' direction, and to the performers who Brooks works so well with. I'm not entirely on board with all of the awards being showered upon the leads of this film, as limited dramatic material means performances of limited impact, and yet, virtually everyone - particularly Shirley MacLain, Jack Nicholson and Debra Winger, Hollywood's loveliest voice (Sarcasm) - charms by his or her own right, and with chemistry, until hitting some powerful dramatic highlights. Again, the film is plenty of thorough entertainment value through and through, thanks to subtly colorful direction and a greatly colorful cast which charm and then touch in an almost remarkably clean and refreshing manner, and yet, that's not quite enough to have this film stand out as a romantic dramedy. Brooks' script impresses as much as anything, because even though it has its melodramatics, tropes and excesses, it has guts that are hard to come by in films like these, and it also has the sharpness to match ambition, with clever humor and memorable dialogue, punctuated by deeply human characterization that makes this heartfelt affair so immersive. Although there are missteps here and there throughout this film, it's never less than compelling, for it's never less than inspired breaking conventions as a film of its type enough to reward as a unique, entertaining and moving dramedy.

When the terms are met, certain melodramatics and sentimentalities reflect conventions to a formulaic and overdrawn narrative of only so much weight to begin with, but the underwhelmingness that usually comes to films suffering from issues such as these is ultimately surpassed by the worthy themes, heartfelt direction, charismatic performances and effective writing that make James L. Brooks' "Terms of Endearment" an entertaining, often powerful, and rewarding breakthrough in dramatic-comedy films about romance and family dysfunction.

3/5 - Good.