Skip to main content

You're a dead tissue that won't decompose.

Collateral Beauty
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Will Smith’s most recent attempt to take a wrecking ball to his superstardom, Collateral Beauty is one of those high concept emotional journeys that only look like a bad idea all along when they flop (see Regarding Henry). Except that, with a plot as gnarly as this, it’s difficult to see quite how it would ever not have rubbed audiences up the wrong way. A different director might have helped, someone less thuddingly literal than David Frankel. When this kind of misguided picture gets the resounding drubbing it has, I tend to seek out positives. Sometimes, that can be quite easy – A Winter’s Tale, for example, for all its writ-large flaws – but it’s a fool’s errand with Collateral Beauty.


The last time Smith ventured into such bare-faced, turgidly manipulative and indulgent territory was Seven Pounds, a truly dreadful movie, possibly the nadir of his career (like Bruce Willis before him, he seems content to leave fallow his greatest natural skill as a performer: making people laugh). He fared better with the flagrantly aspirant The Pursuit of Happyness. This falls somewhere in between. While it isn’t dead set on charting a course of personal grief-porn to its tragic end, it is nauseatingly keen to spoon out the life-affirming platitudes. Somehow, the movie attracted an all-star cast, which adds to my ponderance that Frankel’s tin eye deserves to cop some of the flack, albeit Allan Loeb has a track record for shiny, exec-luring premises as well as soggy emotional uplift.


Loeb isn’t making matters easy in the sympathy stakes off the bat, asking us to invest in the survival of that most unworthy of industries, advertising. He might as well have Smith’s Howard Inlet (Inlet?) presiding over a collapsing bank and expect us not to cheer on its demise. We’re told, in all seriousness (as far as I could divine) “Advertising is about illuminating how our products and services will improve people’s lives”. And there I was, thinking it was about brainwashing people into buying things they don’t need or even want in the name of the god that is materialism.


Alas, poor Howard suffers a terrible tragedy soon after, losing his daughter. You can tell this has a terrible effect on him as he turns all grey and stubbly, taking to setting up ridiculously expansive domino arrangements that he then topples, to the accompaniment of a heartstring-pulling soundtrack. Howard has also taken to sending symbolic letters to Love, Time and Death, berating them for putting him through the same grindler they put most people on the planet through at some point. This is, after all, a Hollywood movie, where people do and feel things in an alternate reality, so sending letters to abstract forces is the kind of thing that gets applauded as a red-hot idea and even encourages bidding wars. Did I mention it’s set at Christmas? How could it fail?


Probing tomes on Howard’s writing desk such as The Hidden Reality and Journey of the Souls suggest a philosophical underpinning to Collateral Beauty that simply doesn’t exist. One assumes Loeb either read the blurbs and decided “Nah” or Frankel’s prop department were far more enlightened than those calling the shots. There’s a point where I thought the picture might be promoting the idea of equivocal perceptions of reality – when Whit (Edward Norton, in an entirely thankless part) notes that his relationship with his mentally-ailing mother improved when he stopped trying to “force your reality onto her, and just go into her reality”, that no one person’s is any more valid than another’s – but it isn’t doing that either.


Rather, Loeb is serving up gloopy portions of schmaltz with zero attentiveness to shame and decency. Before Whit comes up with the deranged scheme of hiring actors to play Death (Helen Mirren), Love (Keira Knightley) and Time (Jacob Latimore), in order to have Howard pronounced mentally unfit when they are digitally erased from recorded footage, leaving him talking to air (likely as not to push him completely over the edge, resulting in him going mad or killing himself, should he buy into it at all), he comments that they tried everything: grief counsellors, ayahuasca and interventions. The middle one’s supposed to be a gag, but Frankel, who previously savaged eyeballs with Marley & Me, fumbles pretty much every would-be witty line, just as he torpedoes the emotional ones.


Lest you think this is all about Will, he actually has no more screen time (admittedly, I didn’t do any precise calculations) than his co-workers, Whit, Claire (Kate Winslet) and Simon (Michael Pena), who have maudlin trials of their own to face. Actually, that’s unfair. Whit and Claire have really ropey trials – he, as a philanderer whose daughter has rejected him, must reconnect; she is facing having missed out on motherhood – but Simon’s is rather affecting, so much so that it ought to have merited Howard receiving a good slap for being so self-indulgent while one of his friends is dying from cancer. When Brigitte/Death tells Simon, who has kept the prognosis from his family, “You are not dying right. You’re not helping them”, it’s one of the few lines in the screenplay that land, although the credit is largely due to Mirren and Pena. Other lines, like the gibberish “There is no such thing as collateral beauty” fail to amount to anything even when they’re laboriously explained.


The reveal (although it’s heavily signposted from their first scene) that the actors actually are these universal forces is presumably supposed to make the deception of Howard all right (and anyway, pains have been made to make it clear that, even though what they’re doing is entirely motivated by money, Whit, Claire and Simon really do care about their boss/partner). Being charitable, I might allow that something could be done with an idea like this – minus the nefarious colleagues –  given a poetic makeover by, say, Wim Wenders, rather than engineered by someone whose fall-back for any given emotional outpouring is the a music montage.


I doubt the misconceived twist that Howard’s grief support group counsellor (Naomie Harris) is, in fact, his wife could have worked with anyone, though, since it requires a switch of levers; it’s an intellectual device, a “clever” plot thing, rather than providing a cathartic moment. Still, it appears to do the trick as far as waking Will up is concerned, and he isn’t even consequently pissed off at his unscrupulous fellow workers.


You wonder, with a movie like this, if it might be some sort of test designed to register the limits of what audiences find morally acceptable. That, in an “ends justify the means” sense, all manner of objectionable behaviour gets the tacit nod of approval. If so, it’s just as well it flopped. As such, that my rating isn’t lower reflects that I found Collateral Beauty morbidly diverting, fascinating for the depths to which it is willing to stoop.




Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989) (SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch , or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins . Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon.  It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy ( Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Bi

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the