Cold Souls

Greetings again from the darkness. I really enjoyed the originality of the basic story here, but originality is not sufficient .. this one needed some script doctoring prior to filming.

Paul Giamatti delivers another fine, hangdog, long-suffering turn as, well, Paul Giamatti. Exasperated with his general outlook on life, he does some research into the company who removes the soul from those like him. David Strathairn is the doctor at the soul removal clinic and he plays the knowledgeable, caring professional to perfection.

At different times, this one will remind of Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind, and Total Recall, it never really delivers the depth or entertainment value of any of these. It's almost as if first time feature director Sophie Barthes has so many ideas that it became more important to include them all, rather than refine the best.

As for sci-fi, this one is worth seeing, but ranks behind Moon as this year's best in the genre.

This dreamlike dark comedy starring Paul Giamatti is strangely hilarious at times and at other times it is moving. Paul Giamatti who plays himself in the film, is an actor in misery that is struggling with acting a soulful character in a Chekov play. He reads an article in The New Yorker about a company that can extract souls and preserve them, so one can live without a soul. Giamatti being curious decides to check it out. David Strathairn plays the soul doctor and is hilarious. Giamatti's first visit is full of humorous dry jokes as he is convinced to have his soul extracted. After feeling hollow and empty without a soul, Giamatti decides to borrow the soul of a Russian poet. Unsatisfied, all he wants is his own soul back, however it has been borrowed by the soap opera actress wife of a Russian mafioso. The way the film is portrayed is very surreal and the director did an excellent job capturing this feel. Giamatti steals the screen as he is humorous and yet can believably portray such complex emotion.

This is depressing, because it is not merely bad, it stomps on some very precious ideas.

The fault is in trying to be Woody Allen; even he fails most of the time. There is a deep concept here, but it is obscured by the attempt to wrap it in humor.

The thing worth noticing:

This is a film about performance. Actors have a cursed life in that they have to fill themselves by emptying themselves. The full life is the life committed to potential waste. We are all actors. These concepts first appeared in drama in the famous Vanya of Chekhov. "Vanya on 42nd Street" changed that into a layered folding, making the connection to life outside of the theater explicit.

Here, Giamatti plays the role of Wallace Shawnin "Vanya on 42nd."

David Strathairn plays the same role he did in the similar "Limbo," while Dina Korzun adapts the Audrey Tautou role from "Dirty Pretty Things."

Even the secondary characters are pulled from cold storage with Lauren Ambrose asked to stand in for the Alicia Witt role in "Liebestraum." All of those referenced films repackage Vanya's notions which are deep and disturbing, as suicidally disturbing as they were for the uncle.

There is a way to handle this with humor, I am sure, but Barthes does not find it. She empties and does not fill.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

I never been a big fan of Paul Giamatti, but I found him to be a likable actor. And I liked his acting in some of his movies and this is one of them. What this movie is, is a dramatic black comedy with some artistic elements in it as well. Sometimes a movie can be driven by the actors or actresses and this is the case for this movie. For a role like this Paul Giamatti was perfect for his role and his acting was spot on. So with a good actor that actually fit the role with and interesting and absorbing story makes a pretty good movie. And that is the case for this movie. The premise and the character decisions and thoughts just come off a bit weird and doesn't make any sense sometimes. Especially the scenario where the characters talk about achieving happiness and understanding is better when you get rid of the soul. So by extracting the soul, it makes people happy and this isn't really explained all that much in the movie. So yeah despite some areas that isn't explained all that well, it's a interesting movie. How just being hollow and empty is being truly happy and all is just a bit far-fetched. But later on it goes in a direction that is sort of predictable but understandable. Just thought it would be better if it was further explained a bit in the beginning of the process and the reason behind it all. So the story is about the life of a soulless man and his experiences while being soulless. The direction and humor is clever sometimes and the satire is very well done in this. Which can be difficult to pull off, but with a good actor that actually has something he can actually work with. It really does work for the most part. It comes close to being a great film that could have been a cult classic, but some flat and plain moments in this makes it from reaching that level. Also think if it had a bit more clever black humor in it, it would have been better.

7.9/10

Cold Souls (2009)

This is a concept movie, in a way, though the concept--that you can have your soul extracted and stored in a jar so that you can live without its weight--is actually a bit thin after awhile. What drives it is not something actually heavy or surreal, about having and trading real souls, but more the idea that your soul also affects, very slightly, your personality, or your talent. So really what happens is people begin to trade or borrow souls, and they acquire a little bit of the owner's qualities. And that carries along a few consequences. naturally.

Everything is presented in a deadpan comic way. The souls stored in their foot long glass jars vary greatly, some looking like creative sculptures and others like, well, a jelly bean. Or in the case of our hero, Paul Giamatti, a garbanzo bean. (The Russian half of the cast says in joyful astonishment, "a chick pea!")

Giamatti is not my favorite actor but all my friends think he's terrific and I like the type he plays, a schlumpy everyman with Homer Simpson eyes. And Giamatti, who plays a character named Paul Giamatti, makes this movie. It isn't a tour de force, an Al Pacino or Cate Blanchett jaw-dropper, though I think it's meant to be (he even has roles within roles, with his character rehearsing a stage play). To some extent his willingness to succumb to the movie's simple, clever plot is one of its charms.

There are echoes of the absurd and the playful of two earlier (and better) movies, the incredibly inventive "Being John Malkovich" and the cinematically engrossing "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Both of those are written by the astonishing Charlie Kaufman. Here the writer Sophie Barthes is working almost solo since she is also directing, and if it's solid it's also short of its potential, which unfortunately is so obvious. It's a great idea. And a rather good movie.