Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Thoughts on 17 Again


17 Again snuck up on me. The day I saw it, the original plan I had was to go see Public Enemies with some friends. With no tickets for that available, we chose the next thing showing none of us had seen. My knowledge of the film covered the basic premise and that Zac Efron was in it. I expected a tired formula, insipid acting and a happy ending. I was actually looking forward to it in a twisted way. I thought I would see it, take it all in, and then skewer it. Yes, my dear readers, I am one of those people who watches horrible films purely as a way to hone my mocking skills (although I do draw the line sometimes. Picture This, anyone?). Well, color me surprised, I actually enjoyed the movie. Now, make no mistake; the movie is a typical summer teen comedy, but it has some things that set it apart from the pack.


The plot concerns itself with Mike O'Donnell (Matthew Perry), a 37 year old ex-high school basketball star who's seen better days. Not only did he get passed up for a big promotion at work; his wife wants a divorce and his relationship to his kids could be described as distant, at best. During a visit to his old high school, he talks with a Santa Claus-esque janitor who asks him if he would choose to do it all over again, should he get the chance. Mike does the obvious things and says yes, which as we all know can only mean one thing: Body-Switcheroo-Extraordinaire! He falls through a vortex and comes out his 17 year old self (Zac Efron). Newly re-teenaged, he decides to make things right in his life by fulfilling the dreams of basketball success he abandoned to marry his high school sweetheart. His nerdy (as in memorabilia-collecting, rich-through-software-invention) friend Ned (Thomas Lennon) thinks that's actually a bad idea, and that his "spirit guide" (a.k.a. Clean-Up Santa) gave him this chance so that he could set his life right in less selfish ways. One of them being helping his kids right their own paths.


As it is, his daughter Maggie (Michelle Trachtenberg) is dating the basketball captain, Stan (Hunter Parrish). This being the same Stan that's been bullying her brother, Alex (Sterling Knight). Now, don't get me wrong, I like Michelle Trachtenberg. I liked her geek-turned-princess act in Ice Princess (Don't judge! We all have dark spots in our pasts. I was thirteen and that movie is still surprisingly good.) and I love her psycho-bitch act in Gossip Girl. This movie, however, is not her finest moment. Her character doesn't have much to do as it is, and the few moments she does have for herself are average. Hunter Parrish is treated even worse by the script, which begs the question: if you're gonna have a character that does nothing and is not interesting in the least bit, why waste a talented actor like Parrish in it. The man has a hit show and a critically acclaimed Broadway role under his belt, for God's sake!


Saving the supporting acting on the teen side we have Sterling Knight as the thoroughly adorkable Alex. He was adorable and amusing in every scene he was in. The role didn't require much of him, but I'll be damned if he doesn't make it worth our whiles. It's no surprise he's part of a surprisingly enjoyable comedy show now (more on that later). His deadpan awkwardness at Mike's flirtatious behavior around his mom was at the very least snicker-worthy.


It is a testament to Zac Efron's previously unbeknownst-to-me prowess that the three horrible, clunky monologues the script gives him kinda work. The cafeteria one was funny, the letter was sentimental but not corny and the parenthood one was decent enough. It is things like this that put this movie a notch above most of the teen comedies of recent years. Is it genre defying and above cliché? No, but it is enjoyable and fun. If, like me, you were forced by circumstances outside your control to watch it, you won't suffer through it. If you're free to choose something better at your local rental video place, by all means do so. For me the film represents a glimmer of hope. Hope that future teen comedies can be this good (or even better: Charlie Bartlett, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist et al.) so that I won't have to sit through pointless drivel like Picture This in the future (Yes, I was made to sit through that. We watched it in my O.Chem class during one day the teacher was in a particularly good mood.).

Le verdict: *1/2

4 comments:

  1. Without Zac's movie star charisma, Leslie's ability to be funny while being generous enough give others the spotlight and Sterling's great deadpan, I think 17 Again would have been completely unwatchable. They make it go down easy, but the script is wretched (I actually really hated the cafeteria monologue) and rife with cliché after cliché (as you pointed out). It's certainly not bad for Zac's first post-HSM film, but I hope he uses his success as a stepping stone to better roles in better films.

    And I think you're too quick to judge Picture This!. It's not any worse than 17 Again. Sure, the beginning and ending are complete shit, but La Tisdale really sells that middle section which feels like a lost Buster Keaton short just ready to bust out. The director doesn't trust the audience to get caught up in the silly slapstick so he decides to focus on teen movie clichés. It's a shame because he could have mined some true magic from that section.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree with your observation of Leslie's performance and I also hope Zac uses his popular movie star status as a stepping stone for greater things. Many a great star has had his start in films that seem very out of place next to his later career (an example being Johnny Depp on A Nightmare on Elm Street).

    The reason I judge Picture This! so harshly is precisely that it had the potential to rise a notch above the standard teen comedy (if not in avoiding cliché in making an enjoyable experience out of it, much like in 17 Again). While in 17 Again the focus is on the comedy and the cliches are circumstantial (and if they're clichés why would we need focus to be on them if we're noticing them anyway) in Picture This! the clichés are (as you pointed out) the focus of the movie. Tisdale's physical comedy talents are then wasted in the middle section (the section that isn't burdened by exposition or the need for closure and as such should be the most fun, in comedy at least). What could've been entertaining is reduced to standard bordering on boring. It is a shame that the direction didn't see things this way.

    We should also bear in mind I was surrounded by a group of people I disliked (bad class choice) in a crowded, hot room in a day that hadn't been going too well, so maybe that made me specially hard to please that day. Bad mood means skewering mood for me. I'd be willing to give it a second chance and post a more detailed review, if you'd like.

    P.S. I am such a geek/fan that when I saw it was you commenting I literally squealed. Thank you for visiting my site! Any tips?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see what you mean about Picture This! and that does make sense why you see it as more of a failure than 17 Again. I think I was just so impressed that La Tisdale managed to do so much with so little that the film as a whole moved up in my estimation. And I hear you about bad conditions ruining a movie. Those just get the best of you sometimes.

    I don't know if a second viewing is really necessary, actually. It's not like the film is some lost classic and there are so many other wonderful films out there that you will get so much more from.

    And thank you for the squeal! I'm so honored that you would think so highly of me. I really like what I'm seeing so far so my only tip at the moment is to keep doing what you're doing and do it often (you only get better the more you blog, as I've learned).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm so glad to hear you like it. It is harder to post often that I'd imagined, but I intend to keep going. Thank you for the tip. I really like your site and hope you continue to grace us all with your divalicious take on things.

    ReplyDelete