Not all his work is equal, but at this point I've seen almost all the films Louis Malle directed, and I've loved almost every last one. The problem with this one, unfortunately, is evident from the start, and the impression never meaningfully changes. For all the flits of cleverness it boasts throughout a runtime of ninety minutes, it takes more than half an hour to come close to eliciting a laugh, and longer still to actually do so. Other opportunities arise, but one can count the number that bear fruit; by my estimation, that's a total of three. I don't dislike 'Crackers,' mind you, and in fact there is much about it to appreciate to one degree or another. Sadly, however, the one thing a comedy requires to succeed is to be funny, and this picture makes far too little of an impression to meaningfully earn one's favor. It's enjoyable, but only in a rather passive way, providing a lot of smiles but too little of the desired reaction.
A strong cast was assembled, and I really do like them all; beyond the most significant stars, Tasia Valenza, Larry Riley, and Trinidad Silva are all pretty swell, and everyone performs admirably. The characters Jeffrey Fiskin wrote for them all are minor delights, given plentiful personality and quirks to lay the foundation for a mess of humor as they all play a part in the tableau. Similarly, the scene writing is filled with wit, a host of fun gags and bits that are plainly primed for greater things. And the narrative is fine soup for all these facets to swim in as the characters come together, a burglary is planned, and things go wrong. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with the comedic timing, such as it is, and it seems to me that Malle maintains the appropriate tone (light and a little wry) that should allow all these qualities to flourish. Every shot and scene is orchestrated with just the right touch that ensures everything looks and sounds good.
So what happened? Why does 'Crackers' fall so very flat as it does? Why did I laugh so little? I can only surmise that despite all its strengths, advantages, and potential, the material just didn't possess enough vitality to really take off. It's more blithely amusing than anything else, a feeling that's reinforced as the last several minutes rather shift the tone. I don't think this is "bad" by any means, and it's quite well made, really. In addition to Malle's reliable keen eye, and an able cast, the stunts and effects came off well. The sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all fetching. And still the feature just kind of limps along, as there just doesn't seem to be enough life in Fiskin's screenplay to make it count. Or maybe no one in particular can be held responsible, and this is simply a rare concatenation of circumstances where all the various pieces fail to align in the exact right way. Whatever the case may be, the end result falls well short.
I won't say that the movie doesn't offer a good time, but it's a very mild one at that - baseline satisfactory and passable, the type of fare one can "watch" without actively engaging. I won't say to avoid it, but unless one stumbles upon it, there is definitely no reason to go out of your way for it. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Crackers' than I do, but I'm sorry to say that despite everyone's efforts, this might actually be the low point of Malle's oeuvre. Oh well.
A strong cast was assembled, and I really do like them all; beyond the most significant stars, Tasia Valenza, Larry Riley, and Trinidad Silva are all pretty swell, and everyone performs admirably. The characters Jeffrey Fiskin wrote for them all are minor delights, given plentiful personality and quirks to lay the foundation for a mess of humor as they all play a part in the tableau. Similarly, the scene writing is filled with wit, a host of fun gags and bits that are plainly primed for greater things. And the narrative is fine soup for all these facets to swim in as the characters come together, a burglary is planned, and things go wrong. Meanwhile, there's nothing wrong with the comedic timing, such as it is, and it seems to me that Malle maintains the appropriate tone (light and a little wry) that should allow all these qualities to flourish. Every shot and scene is orchestrated with just the right touch that ensures everything looks and sounds good.
So what happened? Why does 'Crackers' fall so very flat as it does? Why did I laugh so little? I can only surmise that despite all its strengths, advantages, and potential, the material just didn't possess enough vitality to really take off. It's more blithely amusing than anything else, a feeling that's reinforced as the last several minutes rather shift the tone. I don't think this is "bad" by any means, and it's quite well made, really. In addition to Malle's reliable keen eye, and an able cast, the stunts and effects came off well. The sets, costume design, and hair and makeup are all fetching. And still the feature just kind of limps along, as there just doesn't seem to be enough life in Fiskin's screenplay to make it count. Or maybe no one in particular can be held responsible, and this is simply a rare concatenation of circumstances where all the various pieces fail to align in the exact right way. Whatever the case may be, the end result falls well short.
I won't say that the movie doesn't offer a good time, but it's a very mild one at that - baseline satisfactory and passable, the type of fare one can "watch" without actively engaging. I won't say to avoid it, but unless one stumbles upon it, there is definitely no reason to go out of your way for it. I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Crackers' than I do, but I'm sorry to say that despite everyone's efforts, this might actually be the low point of Malle's oeuvre. Oh well.