I’d heard of the film ‘The Bucket List’ about ten years ago, after a friend watched it. She introduced me to the idea of a ‘Bucket List’ - things we hope to do before we ‘kick the bucket’. It’s a phrase that has become so widely used now that it’s hard to remember that it was coined by this film in 2007. We hadn’t seen the film, so when I saw a new DVD - still sealed in cellophane - at a church sale, I didn’t hesitate to pay 50 cents to buy it, and we decided to watch it last night.
Part of the reason for picking the film up is that one of the main characters is Morgan Freeman, who is one of my favourite actors. The other is Jack Nicholson, who is also well-known. I knew the outline of the story, such as it is: two terminally ill patients decide to make a list of things they have always wanted to do, and then actually do them. But I had no idea how it would all pan out.
The first twenty minutes or so of the film are so depressing that, despite the high quality acting and script, we almost stopped watching. We meet Carter (Morgan Freeman) who works as a mechanic in a garage, and Edward (Jack Nicholson) who is a high-powered millionaire businessman. Carter is clearly a likeable and highly knowledgeable man, while Edward is pushy, arrogant and loud. He owns the hospital where he is subsequently taken, and finds himself in a room with Carter.
That part is fine, but there was rather a lot of medical talk, unpleasant images of Edward reacting badly to chemotherapy (albeit from behind) and their eventual diagnoses. In the context of what’s supposed to be a light comedy drama, this seemed very heavy - and their rapid apparent recoveries, seeing them setting out to travel the world and fulfil their dreams (funded by Edward) a bit unlikely.
But of course it’s an unlikely premise anyway; I didn’t find Edward’s character particularly believable, although I liked Carter very much. Edward is the one who pushes them to go, persuading Carter that they might as well enjoy their last few months. Carter’s wife Virginia is not convinced; she’s a nurse, and understands his illness and that she may lose him. She doesn’t want him away, possibly becoming ill again while out of the country.
The travelling part of the film is a series of short snippets - the two drive racing cars, visit the pyramids and many other landmarks that Carter had only ever dreamed of. We learn that he had wanted to be a history teacher, but took a job as mechanic when his wife learned that she was expecting their first child. He never fulfilled that dream, although his knowledge is so extensive that he is able to explain many artefacts and historical detail to Edward as they travel.
It’s well done, and in places amusing, although there’s always the diagnosis in the background, and I kept wondering when one or other of the men would show signs of becoming ill again. There’s an excellent supporting character in Thomas (Sean Hayes) who is Edward’s PA, treated badly at times but willing to speak his mind too. Gradually Edward does start to think more of Carter and his family than himself, although he remains quite self-centred.
I did appreciate the way that Morgan Freeman’s character is so likeable, with a strong Christian faith which he only mentions when directly asked. There are a few brief conversations about the nature of faith and God, and he isn’t at all pushy. But he’s clearly lived an upright, moral and loving life; and while he’s a bit disillusioned with his marriage and family, an incident happens that puts it all into perspective.
The ending of the film is perhaps a tad schmaltzy, but that’s fine. Given that it’s (predictably) not a happy ending, I thought it well done, with one of the characters, at least, finding hope for the future. And it’s really the only ‘story’ part. The idea of a ‘bucket list’ was novel when it was introduced; the film made a great impression on my friend ten years ago. But now, with the phrase in common parlance, and the basic plot well known, there wasn’t much that was moving or which we could relate to. If it weren’t for the excellent performances from the two main characters, I wouldn’t recommend it at all.
The rating is 12, which I think is right, given the subject matter of the film. There’s very little bad language, and nothing explicit but unlikely to be of much interest to anyone under the age of about fifty anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment