BOOKS AND ARTS DECEMBER 19, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Will Smith is testing us. Over the summer, he tried to get America to swallow the idea of a do-gooding p.r. flack (played by Jason Bateman) in Hancock. We did swallow it--and worse--to the tune of $228 million in domestic receipts. With Seven Pounds, Smith goes further, trying to force the idea of a do-gooding IRS agent down our throats. (Even Will Ferrell, who tried the trick in Stranger Than Fiction, couldn’t pull that off.) But if recent box-office history is any guide, the moviegoing public will dutifully devour Seven Pounds and ask for seconds.
Directed by Smith’s The Pursuit of Happyness collaborator Gabriele Muccino, the movie takes the form of a puzzle. We watch as IRS officer Ben Thomas (Smith) calls 911 to report a suicide and, when asked who the victim is, replies, “I am.” We then flash backward, to Ben receiving a mysterious list of “suitable candidates” he has ordered drawn up; to Ben as the CEO of an aeronautics company, paying too much attention to work and too little to his wife; to Ben in a terrible car accident; to Ben stalking a series of people with medical ailments, alternating between aggressive attempts to gauge their character and lavish exertions to improve their circumstances. What’s going on? Is Ben an angel? A ghost? An alien sent to Earth to redeem our sins? He’s obviously way too nice to be a real IRS agent.
As Ben wanders around selflessly fixing the lives of perfect strangers--notable among them a blind man (Woody Harrelson in a comical wig) and a woman with a bad heart (Rosario Dawson)--the film looks as though it might shape up to be a paradigmatic fable for our times, the Unpaid Medical Bills Thriller. But from the start there is something bleaker in the background, a dark secret waiting to be unearthed. To underline the point, Smith squints his eyes and purses his lips in an effort to look unhappy in his own skin--an acting challenge so formidable that he might be forgiven for only partly succeeding. For a while, about midway through the film, the central enigma recedes in favor of an extended flirtation between Smith and Dawson (who is as effortlessly magnetic as usual). But once the awkward courtship is consummated, smacko comes the twist ending, rushing back to the forefront like an ill wind.
It’s a conclusion more prosaic, and more appalling, than anticipated, and much as I’d like to spoil it, I won’t. (Just pay attention to that very first scene, which is more straightforward than you might expect.) Like Hancock, Seven Pounds is a sloppy film, shot through with acute problems of structure, logic, and pace, which the producers evidently thought could nevertheless coast on Smith’s well-documented marketability. But Seven Pounds is something worse as well: a dour, morally beclouded film that confuses generosity and grief, self-abnegation and self-annihilation. Yes, it comes prettily wrapped as the package of holiday uplift it fatuously imagines itself to be. But this is a present best left unopened.
Christopher Orr is a senior editor at The New Republic.
38 comments
WOW, what a terrible review. This movie was amazing and Will Smith is one of the best actors out there right now. He did not pull this off "partly." The whole movie was well though out and the plot was magnificent. It made me cry many times. Stop being an elitist douchebag reviewer and realize that you are demeaning an excellent movie. Shame on you. :)
- Jake
December 18, 2008 at 9:36am
You're entirely entitled to disagree, Jake, but lets hold off on the name-calling. I couldn't explain why I found the film so morally grotesque--or cite its more glaring plot holes--without "spoiling" it, but I may revisit the subject later. You will presumably still disagree, but at least you will understand my complaints--which, judging from the film's critical reception, are not uncommon ones.
- Chris Orr
December 19, 2008 at 9:34am
Why is it "elitist" in the derogatory sense to dislike a movie, as say so, that others like?
-
December 19, 2008 at 9:42am
Chris, I agree that the film is terrible, and I've a question over something: With its guilty-conscience protagonist looking to better the lives of seven people, was the title, then, taken from Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice", where a pound of flesh was given as atonement for a sin? Oh, Jake -- Smith is actually quite poor in his role. He's uncommunitive, bland, and sorely lacking in variety. Yes, he's playing a guy who's not dead yet wants to remain dead inside, but it's still an actor's job to vivify and emotionally open himself up to the camera, and when Smith tries it here he's simply soggy dogwood. (Also worth noting: His young son gives the worst child performance in many a moon in "The Day the Earth Stood Still" remake.)
- jacksommersby
December 19, 2008 at 9:49am
I like Will Smith too. But thank the goddesses for elitist reviewers that attempt to help us preserve our dwindling brokerage accounts by steering us away from films that may give us full value for our remaining dollars.
- BJ
December 19, 2008 at 10:23am
I have no interest in getting into name-calling, and normally don't particularly feel up to criticizing reviews (I've written enough concert reviews myself that it doesn't appeal to me to do so). But in this case I do have a complaint; this review seems to be written in such a way that I almost feel as if I have to see the movie to understand the review. If the movie is as wretched as you say, obviously, that doesn't sound good. Hence the quandry. I could wish for a little more substance--especially after that last paragraph, which seems to come from nowhere.
- cspencef
December 19, 2008 at 2:56pm
I agree with cspencef, Chris! Please do not make us watch this film in order to understand your review. Spoil it! For our sakes!
- lawahine
December 19, 2008 at 4:22pm
I second cspencef. Why the fear of "spoiling"? You've been forced to endure a morally grotesque film--what could you possibly owe its creators? I wish you wouldn't let your respect for the studio's marketing gimmicks force your reviews into incoherence.
- L.G.
December 19, 2008 at 5:42pm
I wish you'd just write the spoiler already so I would't be stuck in this limbo of curiosity. You surely wouldn't want me to SEE the movie to find out what happened, would you?
- meeshlenain
December 19, 2008 at 5:49pm
Interesting thread here going on. I think Will Smith is changing in his life as he is growing older. He is becomeing a better human being. He wants to show it somehow. And while doing, wants to make money as well, loads of it. For himself, and for his production. His movies are attemptsat this combo-objective. Difficult to achieve. He will be much better of if he can find things in real life that he can do to improve other people's lives, and become happy that way.
- TNR reader
December 19, 2008 at 6:18pm
Chris, Jake is obviously a Republican. Whenever we say something they disagree with, they immediately slap that ELITIST label on us. It's code for "liberal" I think.
- newjersey
December 19, 2008 at 10:08pm
Fortunately, in this age of the internets, it's not hard to find out what the spoilers are. I just typed "Seven Pounds spoiler" into the google search bar and voila. That said, I think Chris could write a short-ish follow-up to this review in a couple of days, with "spoiler alert" clearly stated in the title and fill in some of the gaps in this review. It would most likely be as entertaining as most of Chris's stuff, which would increase the amount of entertainment brought into the world by Seven Pounds by a considerable amount. The sad thing is that Will Smith is highly talented, and I would imagine that any movie that he's attached to has a good chance of getting made, and more importantly, finding an audience. Let's hope that his next choice brings moviegoers out for something worth seeing.
- Geoff G
December 20, 2008 at 8:55am
willsmith is a scientologist chris orr, that's only half a review
- uhhh
December 20, 2008 at 10:26am
I haven't even seen the movie yet and I already dissagree with the review... strange... that might explain why I hate critics in general. How do I get paid to give my opinion?
- Liquid
December 20, 2008 at 10:26pm
Chris, This one line I did find rather snooty and unnecessary; "But if recent box-office history is any guide, the moviegoing public will dutifully devour Seven Pounds and ask for seconds". Sounds elitist to me. You are not asking for seconds? And disgusting morality? Are you implying the moviegoing public cannot tell the difference between disgusting or delighting morality? Is there such a thing as delighting morality (at the movies)? And does anyone really care if WS is a scientologist or not? Who knows for sure what he does in his private life. Not any of us. But that's entertainment.
- GeoT
December 21, 2008 at 1:00am
If you wanted to learn how to paint, would you go to an artist or a critic? That notwithstanding, looking a the review and many of the comments reminds me how self-righteous we can be in our need to project our experiences onto others. I saw the movie and while I can understand Chris Orr's experience, that wasn't mine. Watch the movie and have your own experience. That's what movies and art is all about--suspending your own disbelief for the sake of creating an experience.
- satori69
December 21, 2008 at 4:50am
Why are IRS agents necessariy morally reprehensible. They're burecrats who do a job that is socially stigmatized (like postal employees). For better or ill, obviously, but it's cheap and quick and obvious to say they're necessarily the bad guys.
- Dave
December 21, 2008 at 8:57am
Will Smith is not so much an actor as a logo. Still, he is by no means the first such cipher to reach such a pinnacle of stardom and box-office sales. Harrison Ford has just one facial expression, that of a person who has been driven to distraction by constipation. Wherever he is and whatever he's doing, whether he's battling TIE Fighters in outer space, making love to Cate Capshaw in a Rajasthani pallace, or jumping off a dam pursued by US Marshals, Ford looks like he'd rather be holed up with the New York Times in a quiet loo someplace ridding himself of his latest coprolith. But at least Harry has ONE facial expression. You can't say that for Kianu Reaves...
- aeromonas
December 21, 2008 at 9:33am
I am, however, tempted to ask, What's the point? Why do you even waste your time on such trash? The moral opprobrium is a bit much. It seems a bit too self-justifying. I see it like this: Chris Orr attends screening of "Seven Pounds" because, you know, that's what film critics do; Chris Orr observes that "Seven Pounds" is a complete piece of shit, but even though it would save both him and us time if he just wrote "'Seven Pounds'--complete piece of shit" the editors wouldn't like that, so he has to come up with an angle, and not only that, he has to come up with an angle that doesn't leave his readers feeling like they've just wasted their time; Chris Orr hits on the idea that "Seven Pounds" is not only a piece of shit, but an ethically damaging piece of shit.
- aeromonas
December 21, 2008 at 9:48am
How could anyone resist seeing a movie that engenders such passion from viewer and reviewer? Mr. Orr, this is what motivated me to see "Hancock" and, I must admit, will justify my visit to my local multiplex to see "Seven Pounds". However, forewarned is forearmed, so for that, I thank you. Keep up the good work!
- Ian
December 22, 2008 at 6:13am
SPOILER-SPOILER-SPOILER Those of you curious about the gruesome twist that 'Seven Pounds' astonishingly tries to pass off as heartwarming, read on. The rest, avert your eyes. 'Seven Pounds' is the tale of a heroic, suicidal organ self-harvester. Shorn of its out-of-sequence storytelling, it goes something like this: Smith's character was a successful aeronautics engineer who spent too much time focused on work and not enough focused on his loving fiancee. One day, using his blackberry while driving, he caused a terrible accident that killed her and six others. Wracked with guilt, he decided to change the lives of seven people in need, primarily by having his organs removed and donated to them. (One lucky lady just gets his beautiful seaside house.) Using an IRS i.d. that he stole from his brother, he stalks a variety of possible organ recipients and "tests" them in various ways to make sure they are "worthy." (Will Smith's organs are fucking valuable things. You don't just give them away for nothing.) The two lucky winners the film focuses most on are a blind man played by Woody Harrelson (he ultimately gets the eyes, obviously) and a woman with a bad heart played by Rosario Dawson. A complication to Smith's plan is that he and Dawson begin to fall in love. Gentleman that he is, he pulls her weeds, fixes her antique printing press, and, finally, goes to bed with her. Immediately afterward, he checks at her hospital to confirm that her chance of getting an appropriate heart donor is slim to none, and then commits suicide by, yes, getting in a bathtub full of venomous box jellyfish, so that a doctor buddy of his he's pressured into helping can ensure that his heart gets into Dawson's chest. To keep this graph from becoming interminable, I'll post another comment momentarily.
- Chris Orr
December 22, 2008 at 10:22am
MORE SPOILERS What's wrong with this story? Where to begin? There are the silly, silly contrivances. (Suicide by jellyfish? Really?) There are the ridiculous plot problems. For instance, wouldn't Smith's doc buddy be incarcerated for a very long time for playing along with this lethal organ-harvesting? Worse, while I'm no expert, it is awfully hard to believe that a heart that has just been pumped full of the world's deadliest neurotoxin would be implanted in anyone else's body afterward. But these are quibbles next to the film's presentation of Smith's actions as heroic. Look, if he really wanted to make amends for the car accident, wealthy executive Smith could have used his money and influence to help not seven lives, but many thousands. His suicide is not a sacrifice, it's a cop-out. *He wants to die.* His selfless organ giveaway is secondary to his selfish self-destruction. (The very least the film could have done is to give him some incurable disease--the dodge of another Noble Holiday Suicide movie opening this week.) Yet everyone treats Smith's "sacrifice" as moving and courageous, instead of as the sad and gruesome act it was. The last scene is of Harrelson and Dawson meeting for the first time, so that she can see his beautiful new eyes, and he can look at the scar on her chest where her new heart was inserted, and they can share a moment of gratitude and understanding, and hug.
- Chris Orr
December 22, 2008 at 10:45am
Thank you Mr. Orr. I agree completely. The plot and the character is not heroic; it's cowardly and self indulgent (and destructive)
- Minnesota
December 22, 2008 at 11:48am
It is medically impossible to transparent eyes and have them restore vision. Stupid. That is science fiction for the far future.
- DBrown
December 22, 2008 at 2:08pm
Well, 1, its a will smiff movie so I bet it'll make money. 2, I've never agreed with your reviews. I'll probably catch it on DVD though as it just wasn't one that interested me enough to drop $10 on a viewing.
- David
December 22, 2008 at 2:42pm
Hey, "newjersey"--watch your assumptions: I'm a conservative, and an elitist. Why do you liberals always paint with such broad strokes? Besides, "Jake" probably works for the studio, and it's his job to comment on negative reviews, just as it's Chris Orr's job to save me twenty bucks and three hours.
- Old Fat Bald Chick Magnet
December 24, 2008 at 10:34am
Thank you for the spoilers! :) They were very enjoyable.
- lawahine@gmail.com
December 24, 2008 at 11:13am
well thank God (or whomever you pray to if at all) i saw the movie before i read this comment or i may have missed out on a really good thing. its just a movie. it is a meant to entertain. sorry if you weren't. alot of people can relate to the charcters in the movie not just will' role's. sometimes i think that some of you expect to much from these actors or movies in general. how about a mirror that would be a start if you want to critize. the movie makes you think about life and how a simple mistake and one breif moment (good and bad) can change your whole life and people you don't even know...nothing more. stretching the imagination is good for the brain...everything doesn't have to be based on a true story or real life.
- TPRETTY
December 26, 2008 at 5:26am
Will Smith is like the Obama of Hollywood: deemed the savior and messiah of all. Just like Obama was shuttled in on a red carpet into the Senate and White House from nowhere, everything that Smith touches turns golden - horrendous movies like MIB 1 + 2, Independence Day, Hancock. It's unbelievable how bad those movies are.
- jwl2672
December 29, 2008 at 4:06pm
"its just a movie. it is a meant to entertain" Why is it that people are such bloody nit-pickers about everything else (food, the way their clothes are stacked, service, money etc. etc.) but become very very indulgent when it comes to movies, especially one's severley criticised by the critics? Obviously anything can be fed to one's mind. He's paid to be a critic but it must be a torture to Mr. Orr to sit through movies, I pity him deeply. That spoiler itself was 2 minutes of my life taken up by utter rubbish. And to everyone who found this movie in any way life affirming, they probably need to see less movies and go out and do something with life itself.
- Shama
January 1, 2009 at 7:51pm
I knew very little about this movie going in, and I thought it was terrific. The complaints that Smith's character is "cowardly and self-indulgent," and that he should have devoted his life to helping thousands, not just seven, misses a key truth tho his character. He was damaged to the point that he could not live with his guilt. He had already decided to kill himself. The only way that he could make his life worth anything was to make his death worth something. This story is fairy tale. There is no point in asking "real world" questions to it. Either you were moved by it (and I was), or you weren't.
- NoahGi
January 2, 2009 at 3:25pm
While i agree this movie has flaws and it is clearly a film that depends on scenes that are overly dramatized to incite emotion, I can not agree with your perspective as expressed in this sentence, "Yet everyone treats Smith's "sacrifice" as moving and courageous, instead of as the sad and gruesome act it was." Too mostly everyone he has affected it is a sacrifice. Aside from his brother, the lead female, and the blind character it is the only it can be understood. The movie does show subtle conflict with Smith's goal. His best friend, the lawyer, and his brother clearly do not support Smith's self-destructive behavior. Additionally, the female clearly appreciates having a life despite not having a lover. So, if anything, she hates but loves him. Aside from the fact if someone entered your life and dramatically changed it as the movie has presented would you really cast too much doubt? He has essentially extended everyone's life but the blind mans. More than anything this movie is about atonement for this specific individual. He killed seven people, his wife, and lost everything that gave him meaning - for Smith's character he owes seven people. Yeah, it might be a stupid perspective but its his. People aren't pure logical beings. I enjoyed this movie. I would recommend it if you like extensively emotional pieces. Will Smithj's acting is good. I don't know what people expect from him. A lot of you seem to hate his past movies but fail to recognize they're blockbuster pieces. They're meant to be fun and for the most part are.
- keith
January 4, 2009 at 12:31am
Awh. Aeromonas "Full of Hot Air" literally (+) What's your real problem ? Perhaps you'll convince a few that you know what your deranged mind is spewing out. The others will grasp a sense that your internal rage and vulgarity arise from a source far deeper than the dislike of a "drama." You're not even being paid and you explicate as if... Ever dabbled with the idea of writing a script .. or any literary piece of value? Thank you for invigorating me to go see what you're cursing about.
- Rica de Uni
January 4, 2009 at 2:15am
I am cracking up with laughter that this was seriously a movie that was supposed to be heartwarming and endearing!Suicide by jellyfish!??? This movie should have been a comedy-really! Thank GOD my friend stopped me from seeing this movie and I found some like-minded individuals to concur with my assessment of the plot!
- CoCo
January 4, 2009 at 9:15pm
I thought the movie was great. I see it for what it is a MOVIE! Will Smith is more than a logo aeromonas he can act with the best of them. Remember it gonna take more than charm to keep him on top. For those of you looking for entertainment and action what James Bond. Those of you with a heart...think about your life. Enjoy.
- realistic
January 5, 2009 at 1:17pm
Thanks for the spoilers; I now know to avoid this movie. Smith seems to be making a point of getting into morally dubious movies lately. I Am Legend was hands down the biggest insult to my intelligence last year. The fact that it proved clearly to be a treatise on religion (or faith's) supposed superiority to secularism only made it that much more grating.
- Robert S.
January 7, 2009 at 11:18am
And what will some people realize? Maybe leave something behind before commiting suicide... I'm against the image that the movie gives by inviting people to suicide when all hopes are gone. But it also tells people, that really decide to comit suicide, to donate their organes before going. If one dies and saves a few, it is far less unacceptable.
- Daniel
April 13, 2009 at 10:26pm
Oh perrleease, cry over seven pounds!? The movie was so obviously trying to squeeze a tear out of the viewer that it was audible groaning. A box jellyfish for heavens sake, in a bath and a huge presumtion that he knew enough about his own biology and that of the jellyfish to make sure his organs were viable. Inodded off several times and had to rewind just to make sure I wasn't dreaming the whole miserable disturbing thing.
- sharon
May 23, 2009 at 8:03am