Addiction

Underseen Movie: ‘Thanks for Sharing’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This review was written back in 2012, and I was reminded of this film when I recently interviewed the writer/director and stars of the 2024 film “Sweet Dreams.”

There are many who see support groups (or 12-step groups if you want to call them that). The truth, however, is that those who attend them are not any different from the rest of us, and they can at times be very funny. At the very least, these people deserve credit and applause for taking the time to get the help they need because asking for help is usually one of the hardest things to do.

“Thanks for Sharing” is one of the few movies I have seen which deals with these groups and the people who attend them. While it does take the subject of addiction seriously, it also finds a good balance between drama and comedy to where we find ourselves laughing with these characters and never at them.

This movie focuses on three men who attend the same Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting: Adam (Mark Ruffalo), Mike (Tim Robbins) and Neil (Josh Gad). Adam is an over-achieving environmental consultant who is celebrating his fifth year of sobriety. Mike is a happily married man who is kind of the elder statesman of the support group these men attend. And then there’s Neil, an emergency room doctor who is in serious denial over his addictions to where he gets in serious trouble with the law. I like how we are given characters who are at different stages of dealing with this addiction to where it gives you a good idea of why people come to these groups in the first place.

Adam is at a good place as he has really cleaned up his act and is coping with life really well. He takes great pains to keep himself on the right track by taking such measures as removing television sets from his hotel rooms so he won’t find himself watching anything pornographic. But then he meets the irresistibly beautiful Phoebe (Gwyneth Paltrow) while at a party where people are eating bugs (don’t ask), and the two are instantly attracted to one another. While Adam is eager to be in a relationship with her, he is not altogether sure he is ready to fall in love again after all he has accomplished. He is trying to keep his demons at bay, but it becomes much harder for him to do so.

Mike has been in recovery the longest, and he appears to have a great relationship with his wife, Katie (Joely Richardson). Things between them, however, change very quickly when his son Danny (Patrick Fugit) turns out to have some serious addiction problems of his own. Katie is thrilled to see Danny, but Mike is not sure he can trust him after all they have been through. In the process, we come to see that Mike, despite his well-earned sobriety, still has some major control issues he has yet to make peace with.

As for Neil, he has gotten himself into a painful situation when he stands uncomfortably close to a very attractive woman while riding on the subway. From there, things come to a head for him when he loses his job under embarrassing circumstances, and this finally makes him realize he needs help. Neil eventually finds solace through another recovering addict, Dede (Alecia Moore, better known as Pink), who is just starting to deal with her personal demons as well.

I am always yearning for movies which have down to earth characters, and “Thanks for Sharing” is definitely one of them. All of what everyone goes through feels very real, and nothing ever felt contrived to me. Granted, the storyline involving Robbins’ character is one we have seen many times before, but the acting between him, Fugit and Richardson are so good to where we can forgive the filmmakers for venturing into familiar territory. It really is a shame how most Hollywood movies do not dare give us more characters we can relate to on a human level. If they did, it would make most movies far more enjoyable and invigorating as a result.

“Thanks for Sharing” was directed and co-written by Stuart Blumberg, one of the writers of “The Kids Are All Right.” Finding a balance between comedy and drama can be very hard to pull off, but Blumberg is successful in doing so for the most part. He also shows a lot of love for each character here, and not just the ones who in recovery.

Mark Ruffalo remains one of the best and most naturalistic actors working today. As Adam, I never caught him acting once, and his chemistry with Paltrow is very strong. Ruffalo makes Adam a very likable guy as he struggles to not fall back into his old habits, and he makes you see how much of a challenge this is for him.

As for Paltrow, this is the most relaxed she has been onscreen in some time. While she was a blast to watch in “Iron Man 3,” she seems more in her element here as she portrays a character who is not an addict, but one who needs to face up to the issues slowly eating away at her. Watching her in “Thanks for Sharing” reminded me of just how wonderful she can be when she is given the right role.

Robbins remains as terrific an actor as ever, and I am always enthralled when I watch him in anything he does. His character of Mike seems like the typical father who has lost trust with those he should be the closest to, but he imbues this character with a lot of humanity to where he never seems like a simple caricature. His scenes with Fugit, who we have not seen enough of since “Almost Famous,” feel emotionally true, and their relationship feels authentic when it could have come across as ridiculously manipulative.

At this point, I am not familiar with Gad’s work other than him appearing in the acclaimed musical “The Book of Mormon.” Gad has the trickiest role here as he is this movie’s comic relief, but he never plays Neil for simple laughs. We are watching Neil as he is at the start of his recovery, and it isa rough start to say the least. Gad makes you root for Neil even as he does some of the dumbest and most reckless things anyone would ever have the nerve to do.

But there is no forgetting Alecia Moore, a.k.a. Pink, who gives an impressive performance as an addict who was pushed into this particular support group by a friend. Her character of Dede ends up forming a strong rapport with Neil, and they find in each other the strength they need to move past what is destroying their lives to where they can see the light at the end of the tunnel. From start to finish, she really understands this character very well, and I could see it in her eyes. Like Ruffalo, you never catch her acting here as she grounds her character in a reality which is not all removed from our own.

I liked how “Thanks for Sharing” showed how these support groups can become another addiction as its members begin to spend more time with others instead of their own families. While these characters have made great strides in conquering their demons, they still struggle with their urges every single day. Truth be told, it takes a lot of courage to face up to the things which are tearing your life apart, and long before this movie is over, you realize these addicts are not weak but strong.

The one thing I would have liked to see more of is how the family members deal with their loved ones’ addictions. My understanding is that they can only be so involved in what an addict goes through as they can never fully comprehend how dangerous their addictions can be unless they have experienced the same thing themselves. There is a scene between Paltrow and Richardson which addresses this divide, but I would have liked to see this movie go a little bit deeper in this area.

But when all is said and done, “Thanks for Sharing” fulfilled my need to see a motion picture with characters which we can recognize in our own lives. With all these superhero movies coming at us endlessly, it is important to remember we will never be perfect and cannot be everybody’s everything. It would be nice to be a superhero though, wouldn’t it? Lord knows we could use a couple of them right now. Anyway, I think this movie is definitely worth checking out.

* * * ½ out of * * * *

Exclusive Interview with ‘Sweet Dreams’ Writer and Director Lije Sarki

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

There are many movies out there about addiction issues and the rehabilitation which comes about when some finally can take no more pain and punishment. Those which come to mind include “Clean & Sober,” “When a Man Loves a Woman,“ “I Smile Back” and “The Way Back” to name a few. Now we have “Sweet Dreams” which stars “Jackass” alumnus Johnny Knoxville as Morris, a man who has finally hit rock bottom when it comes to drugs and alcohol, and we watch as he enters a sober living facility named Sweet Dreams where he meets others struggling with the same demons. While there, he gets recruited to coach the rehab center’s softball team which he is at first reluctant to do, but it gives his life a direction and purpose he was previously lacking.

“Sweet Dreams” was written and directed by Lije Sarki whose previous films include “Concrete Kids” and “Alphonso Bow,” and he was one of the producers of the indie hit “The Peanut Butter Falcon.” Like the characters here, he has also struggled with addiction issues but has since found his way past them and very much enjoys his sober lifestyle. With this film, he wanted to present the sober living, anonymous meetings and 12-step programs in a different way. Whereas most movies of this sort tend to be dark and depressing, he wanted “Sweet Dreams” to be more uplifting and to show how recovery can be fun and a joyous thing even after you have hit rock bottom. What results is a motion picture with a lot of heart, and you can see this in the writing and the performances, particularly Knoxville’s.

I got to speak with Lije recently about “Sweet Dreams,” and we talked about how the challenges he had in shooting this film (he only had 20 days), and of how he made this one stand out from so many other movies like it.

“Sweet Dreams” is now playing in theaters and is available to own and rent on digital platforms. Please check out the interview below as well as the trailer.

‘Evil Dead’ Remake Has its Moments, but it Could Have Been Better

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Seriously, I really wanted to love this remake of “Evil Dead” the way my fellow horror fans did. They seem to be thrilled about this one in ways they usually are not when it comes to remakes of any kind, and we knew way in advance that this remake was designed to be an incredibly gory delight. But while the filmmakers did their best to not just do the same old thing with their take on Sam Raimi’s immortal cult classic from 1981, the story of a group of young adults trapped in an old cabin and being terrorized by demons has now been told one too many times for it to thrill me anymore. Furthermore, they spent more time making this movie look bloody as hell instead of truly scary, and this is why it fell apart for me.

The character of Ash was wisely left out of this interpretation as no one would dare try to replace Bruce Campbell in this unforgettable role. Heck, even if Campbell was dead, no one would be recklessly stupid as to attempt such a foolish feat as replacing him in this role would be like replacing the late Richard Belzer as John Munch. Instead, the story centers around a young woman named Mia (Jane Levy) who has come to that horrific cabin in the woods to kick her opiate addiction once and for all. She is joined by her brother, David (Shiloh Fernandez), with whom she has not always had the best relationship, and his sexy girlfriend, because guys like him just have to have one, Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore). Also present are her friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci) and Olivia (Jessica Lucas) who have watched Mia go through detox before, and they are not sure they can handle her going through it again.

This “Evil Dead” takes its sweet time setting up the characters and their backstories before they discover the Naturom Demonto, best known as being the Book of the Dead. I loved how so many of the pages had things written on it such as DON’T SAY THESE WORDS OUT LOUD, and yet Eric, whose job as a high school teacher has made him quite cynical, just has to read them anyway. Besides, how is a horror movie supposed to work if nobody does anything incredibly stupid? Those faceless demons then make their way to the isolated cabin with the sole intention of possessing its inhabitants and then killing them off one by one. The question is, which one of them will be left standing at the end?

This remake was directed by Fede Alvarez who made the short film “Ataque de Pánico!” (aka “Panic Attack!”) which was a big hit on You Tube, and he would later go on to make the terrific horror thriller “Don’t Breathe.” He does not seem the least bit shy about giving us tons of blood and gore, and it made me wonder what graphic images he had to cut out in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. You have one character slicing their tongue in half, another tearing chunks of flesh out of their face, and yet another using a nail gun the same way Danny Glover used one in “Lethal Weapon 2.” And let us not forgot that one person who gets a chainsaw shoved into a part of their body which would eliminate the need for a tonsillectomy. Still, no NC-17. Perhaps this is because in this version, no one gets raped by a tree.

But while Alvarez and company put a lot of work into the gory effects, I wished they had put just as much effort into the story. Things are played a lot more seriously here than they need to be, and it would have been great if they included more of the original’s sense of humor which helped to make it so memorable. With this remake, the filmmakers are already at a disadvantage because this kind of story has been told to death far too many times already. We quickly know where the characters are heading once they mistake of unlocking the door to that darn cabin, and all we can do is wonder who will be the first to die and how.

Also, there is way too much shaky camerawork going and, when this remake came out, I was getting to the point where I can no longer defend anyone going overboard with this kind filmmaking. I used to get a kick out of shaky cam, but I have since come to believe this technique is best to Paul Greengrass.

As for the actors, the majority of them are just okay. Not that the cast of the original gave Oscar worthy performances, but they were a lot livelier than this bunch. The strongest performance comes from Jane Levy, best known for her work on the television shows “Shameless” and “Suburgatory,” as Mia. While her character is one messed up individual, Levy makes you get deeply involved in Mia’s plight from start to finish to where we never want to abandon her.

When all is said and done, it is impossible not to have had high expectations for this particular horror remake as Raimi, Campbell and Robert G. Tapert (producer of the original “Evil Dead”) were on board to make sure the fans got all the blood and gore they wanted. As a result, I knew this version would not be dumbed down into some lame PG-13 flick where all the edge was rendered moot for mass consumption. I did enjoy parts of it, and it did keep me entertained for the most part. But considering the talent involved, I expected it to be a lot more than what it was.

The great thing about the original “Evil Dead” was how Raimi was able to pull off so many clever and innovative shots on such a low budget. Alvarez was able to work with a much larger budget this time around ($17 million), but while he certainly does try his hardest, he cannot top what Raimi did or bring much of anything new to this material. I do have to give him some credit as he gets away with using practical special effects instead of throwing a bunch of cheap CGI crap at us. This is what helps to keep the goings on more entertaining than they should be. In no way should this remake seem like a total loss as it did give us filmmakers and actors who have since moved on to bigger and better things, and they deserve to be where they are at. Still, I wished I liked this version much more than I did.

I came out of this “Evil Dead” remake with some hope despite my mixed reaction to it as I wondered if it could possibly give Hollywood enough of a reason to give us a fourth film with Ash Williams following the events of “Army of Darkness.” People had been praying for a fourth “Evil Dead” film for years, and we finally got one in the form of a cable series entitled “Ash vs Evil Dead.” This proved to be loads of fun, but when it was all over, Campbell made it clear he was retiring the character once and for all as he could no longer tackle the physical and emotional punishment, but we have a new one entitled “Evil Dead Rise” which looks to reinvigorate the franchise in a whole other way. Here is hoping it is worth the wait.

By the way, for those of you who have not yet watched this “Evil Dead” remake, I implore you to sit through the end credits as there is a special surprise at the very end. Trust me, it is worth the wait. And, sad to say, it was my favorite part of this film.

* * ½ out of * * * *

Andy Serkis on Returning to Play Gollum in ‘The Hobbit’

Posted on by The Ultimate Rabbit

Gollum in The Hobbit

WRITER’S NOTE: This article was written back in 2012.

It is a thrill to see Andy Serkis return to the role of Gollum in Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.” While we marvel at the special effects which gave Gollum his unique if wretched look, it was Serkis who breathed life into the character in a way no one else could. His success in “The Lord of the Rings” got him cast in “King Kong” in which he portrayed the big ape, and audiences were begging to see him get an Oscar nomination for his brilliant performance as Caesar in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes.” Seeing Serkis return to the role that made him a star brings everything around full circle for the actor, and we are constantly fascinated at how he approaches roles that surround him with a wealth of special effects.

Serkis first played Gollum over a decade ago, and the character was 600 years old back then. “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” takes place sixty years before the events in “The Lord of the Rings” so he looks a little better here, but that is not saying much. But what has really changed about how Serkis plays Gollum is the technology involved in filmmaking. While “The Lord of the Rings” movies were shot on film, “The Hobbit” was made digitally. Serkis talked with Fox News’ Ashley Dvorkin about the differences this time around.

“So I was acting with Elijah Wood and Sean Astin and we would all play out the scenes together, so that hasn’t changed,” Serkis told Dvorkin. “But the thing that’s changed is that I had to then go and shoot it again on the motion capture stage. So I had to repeat everything twice. So I shot everything twice in effect. Whereas 12 years later, now we have full performance capture on set so I can just play the scene once – I’ve got a head mounted camera which is capturing all my facial expressions. The suit is able to act in a live action set and we just played the scene like, two conventional actors playing the scene with each other. So it’s much, much better.”

Gollum, be it in “The Lord of the Rings” or “The Hobbit,” has always resembled a heroin addict who is relentlessly eager for his next fix. In talking with Katy Steinmetz of Time Magazine, Serkis said the character’s physicality was “borne out of his addiction to the ring.” The way he describes it, this really was the best way for him to fully inhabit the character, and he talked about the inspirations which played a part in his performance.

“His personality, the involuntary way in which his body spasms when the word Gollum comes out of his mouth, is connected to the guilt that he carries with him in his throat from murdering his cousin,” Serkis told Steinmetz. “He is described by Tolkien in many different ways, as a puppy with Frodo and a spider and a frog. I based him a lot on Francis Bacon’s paintings, the agony and torture, which are in turn based on Eadweard Muybridge’s photographs. The references for me were very layered.”

Seeing Gollum move all over, as if he is completely incapable of staying in one place for more than a couple of seconds at a time, makes this seem like one of the most physically demanding roles any actor could take on in their career. I am constantly interested in how Serkis can keep his energy up while playing a character like this as he must get worn out often while on set. He went into more detail with James Rocchi of MSN Entertainment about just how physical playing Gollum is for him.

“It’s very physical. Gollum is an incredibly physical role,” Serkis told Rocchi. “And it’s a combination of physicality and of course vocal. They’re so entwined with each other, so meshed with each other. It’s a pretty exhausting role, but I had such fun playing it with Martin (Freeman who plays Bilbo Baggins). It (the cave scene where they first meet) was the very first thing we shot on the movie as well. It was day one of 276 days of shooting, and there was I was face to face with Martin finding his way into playing Bilbo. And we shot the scene in its entirety every single time. And then Pete would move the camera between takes and let us roll it again. We would just play the whole scene out. And it was really, really exciting when we’re doing it.”

After playing Gollum in several movies, you might think Serkis would be sick to death of this role by now. However, this does not prove to be the case as the character has had a huge impact on his life. He even told Dvorkin he has a full-sized sculpture of Gollum made by WETA (the digital visual effects company based in Wellington, New Zealand) sitting in his office at his home. Even he is not blind as to the positive impact Gollum has had on his acting career as a whole.

“He’s been like a watershed character for me twice in my life now,” Serkis told Dvorkin. “First of all because not only because he is an amazing character to play the first time around but it was also the beginning of this journey into a performance capture which has enabled me to play so many other amazing roles. By virtue of the fact of him arriving that whole other list of characters has been what I’ve been working on the last decade. And then coming back full circle to playing him again in ‘The Hobbit’ also has brought me to directing. So both times, he’s not only been this amazing creature and great character to explore, but has shifted my life.”

It looks like we will be seeing more of Andy Serkis as Gollum in the future as Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” is now being expanded into three movies instead of just two. Many fans still have some issues with this as J.R.R. Tolkien novel is only 300 pages long, but Serkis is more than confident in Jackson’s ability to pull this particular trilogy off. Since the actor has already spent a number of years working with Jackson, his belief in the director seems more than justified.

SOURCES:

Ashley Dvorkin, “‘The Hobbit’s’ Andy Serkis has full-size Gollum sculpture in his house,” Fox News, December 14, 2012.

Katy Steinmetz, “The Hobbit’s Andy Serkis on Getting Inside Gollum’s Skin,” Time Magazine, December 11, 2012.

James Rocchi, “Interview: Andy Serkis of ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,'” MSN Entertainment, December 17, 2012.