I wanted to like SherryBaby. I really did. I like Maggie Gyllenhaal, and I like good acting. I was lead to believe that the film had both. But after watching it, sadly, this is about the only two things it has.
SherryBaby is about Sherry (Gyllenhaal), a former drug addict, who is fresh from jail and trying to restart her life. Besides trying to become a better person, she wants to reconnect with her young daughter, who has been living with her brother and sister-in-law while she was in prison. But it appears that the road may be a little harder than she first thought.
Right from the start, you can tell the film really does not want to try anything complicated. It is a straight story of a woman seeking redemption for her past woes. We have seen this kind of film time and time again, but every piece of advertising tends to lead us into believing this film is different.
But it isn't.
With a short ninety-six minute running time, SherryBaby is a totally ambiguous mess of ideas that never come to fruition. You know that writer /director Laurie Collyer is really trying to make something of this classically themed story, but it looks like she just wanted to keep it as short and to the point as possible. That means every direction the film wants to take, by bringing up past issues, new characters, and possible ideas for her absolutely dire need for drugs, is never explored. It is strictly mentioned, poked and prodded at, and then is left for the viewer to decide what to do with it. What is the point of throwing indiscernible material at us, if it is never explored?
They cannot and this is the key problem. The film obviously wants to build an extreme amount of pathos for Sherry, and for her situation. We want her to be a better person, and the film suggests that she wants to be as well. But the character is lazy, and wavering; much like the film. It stays in the one viewpoint, and it never lets us really get a taste of who Sherry is. How am I, as a viewer, supposed to feel for such an idiosyncratic person? How is it fair to pass judgment and assumptions on the woman, if I never really know who she is the first place? How is it fair for the filmmakers to pass this off as a complete film, when in reality, it is so messily put together and runs around in circles?
For all of these questions comes a simple answer: you cannot. It just simply does not have the needed material to even attempt it. The haphazard story needs more than just Sherry walking around and falling into silly sexual situations with just about every man she encounters (short of her own brother). It needs some reasoning for her actions, not just a quick skip and a hop to piece together situations mindlessly. It needs some genuine human emotion from more than Sherry. It needs actual real characters for her to interact with, not stereotypical archetypes perfected in far better films. It needs to do more than just set up for a good performance from the lead character. Movies like Ray, Monster, The Last King of Scotland and Capote actually had stories and decent supporting actors to back up their Oscar-winning leads. They actually gave their actors something to work with alongside themselves. Yes, they completely blow away everything in sight with their brilliant acting, but at least they had something to compete against. SherryBaby gives Gyllenhaal herself to compete against, and nothing else.
For all of my ranting on the terrible film, it is mildly watchable because of Gyllenhaal. She breathes life into a terribly underwritten lead, and makes her real and not one-dimensional like everyone else. You can see her reaching for an emotional chord around every twisty turn of her performance, and you know that she is really trying. But the material gives her very little to really do, unlike those Academy Award winning roles that gave the actors a whole ton of things they could possibly do. She feels very held back, and her genuinely naked work here (both figuratively and literally), is shadowed by how weak of a film she is working within.
The rest of the supporting cast can really not be spoken for. They do basically nothing but help advance the plot. Each and every one of them has something to offer Gyllenhaal's character, but none of them really do anything more. They simply offer a mild side story that could have made the film stronger and longer. Danny Trejo, one of my favourite Robert Rodriquez go-to guys, turns in a peculiar performance, but only because he seems to be the only one besides Gyllenhaal really trying to make something of the material. And because all of the supporting characters are even more underwritten than the lead, you will probably barely notice his work here (which is so unlike anything I have ever seen him do).
This is a movie that needed much more than a good performance to make it passable. If Sherry was any other young female actress, I doubt this film would even vaguely need to be seen by anyone. But because Gyllenhaal gives the character some real life attributes, people actually took notice of the movie. Sadly, other than her, the film only serves one other person: to show reasoning for how a bad movie could have been made better. It offers far too many examples, and leaves too many things ambiguous. It needed more, and sadly, will never receive that treatment.
5/10.
SherryBaby is about Sherry (Gyllenhaal), a former drug addict, who is fresh from jail and trying to restart her life. Besides trying to become a better person, she wants to reconnect with her young daughter, who has been living with her brother and sister-in-law while she was in prison. But it appears that the road may be a little harder than she first thought.
Right from the start, you can tell the film really does not want to try anything complicated. It is a straight story of a woman seeking redemption for her past woes. We have seen this kind of film time and time again, but every piece of advertising tends to lead us into believing this film is different.
But it isn't.
With a short ninety-six minute running time, SherryBaby is a totally ambiguous mess of ideas that never come to fruition. You know that writer /director Laurie Collyer is really trying to make something of this classically themed story, but it looks like she just wanted to keep it as short and to the point as possible. That means every direction the film wants to take, by bringing up past issues, new characters, and possible ideas for her absolutely dire need for drugs, is never explored. It is strictly mentioned, poked and prodded at, and then is left for the viewer to decide what to do with it. What is the point of throwing indiscernible material at us, if it is never explored?
They cannot and this is the key problem. The film obviously wants to build an extreme amount of pathos for Sherry, and for her situation. We want her to be a better person, and the film suggests that she wants to be as well. But the character is lazy, and wavering; much like the film. It stays in the one viewpoint, and it never lets us really get a taste of who Sherry is. How am I, as a viewer, supposed to feel for such an idiosyncratic person? How is it fair to pass judgment and assumptions on the woman, if I never really know who she is the first place? How is it fair for the filmmakers to pass this off as a complete film, when in reality, it is so messily put together and runs around in circles?
For all of these questions comes a simple answer: you cannot. It just simply does not have the needed material to even attempt it. The haphazard story needs more than just Sherry walking around and falling into silly sexual situations with just about every man she encounters (short of her own brother). It needs some reasoning for her actions, not just a quick skip and a hop to piece together situations mindlessly. It needs some genuine human emotion from more than Sherry. It needs actual real characters for her to interact with, not stereotypical archetypes perfected in far better films. It needs to do more than just set up for a good performance from the lead character. Movies like Ray, Monster, The Last King of Scotland and Capote actually had stories and decent supporting actors to back up their Oscar-winning leads. They actually gave their actors something to work with alongside themselves. Yes, they completely blow away everything in sight with their brilliant acting, but at least they had something to compete against. SherryBaby gives Gyllenhaal herself to compete against, and nothing else.
For all of my ranting on the terrible film, it is mildly watchable because of Gyllenhaal. She breathes life into a terribly underwritten lead, and makes her real and not one-dimensional like everyone else. You can see her reaching for an emotional chord around every twisty turn of her performance, and you know that she is really trying. But the material gives her very little to really do, unlike those Academy Award winning roles that gave the actors a whole ton of things they could possibly do. She feels very held back, and her genuinely naked work here (both figuratively and literally), is shadowed by how weak of a film she is working within.
The rest of the supporting cast can really not be spoken for. They do basically nothing but help advance the plot. Each and every one of them has something to offer Gyllenhaal's character, but none of them really do anything more. They simply offer a mild side story that could have made the film stronger and longer. Danny Trejo, one of my favourite Robert Rodriquez go-to guys, turns in a peculiar performance, but only because he seems to be the only one besides Gyllenhaal really trying to make something of the material. And because all of the supporting characters are even more underwritten than the lead, you will probably barely notice his work here (which is so unlike anything I have ever seen him do).
This is a movie that needed much more than a good performance to make it passable. If Sherry was any other young female actress, I doubt this film would even vaguely need to be seen by anyone. But because Gyllenhaal gives the character some real life attributes, people actually took notice of the movie. Sadly, other than her, the film only serves one other person: to show reasoning for how a bad movie could have been made better. It offers far too many examples, and leaves too many things ambiguous. It needed more, and sadly, will never receive that treatment.
5/10.