MovieChat Forums > Kelly & Cal (2017) Discussion > IN-credible, as in UN-believable, e.g., ...

IN-credible, as in UN-believable, e.g., MISTAKES made in this movie!

posted 10 years ago by DogtownGirl
23 replies | jump to latest

I'll preface the following criticism of the film by stating that I usually hate (no, really) to criticise filmmakers because know of the sweat and toil that goes into the making of movies, and that directors take such pride in what they produce (and rightly so!). Also, I doubt I could do better, were I to make a movie. But, no matter. I walked out of seeing this film after about an hour for the following reasons, namely generally that I just could NOT buy into it, all in all.

Sooooo ... Here goes, nothing:

SPOILERS AHEAD .... SPOILERS AHEAD .... SPOILERS AHEAD .... SPOILERS AHEAD ... NO, REALLY!

______________________________________________________________________________

1) The "chemistry" between Kelly and her Hubby, was DOA for me. The two actors were not combustible together. The did not sizzle. Rather, they fizzled like a dying sparkler. Better to have "phoned it in", I reckoned.

2) The "friendship" between Kelly and Cal, developed too quickly, to be credible. IMO, it is something that should have slooooooowly come to be, flower and flourish, where it might have been a pleasant surprise to the viewer near the very end of the picture. In real life, I haven't witnessed two people, like Kelly and Cal were presented in the film, connecting let alone jelling straightaway, or even at all! Oh sure, opposites can and do attract, however "only in the movies" do they do so to the degree depicted in this picture. And so the cliche lives on.

3) Cal's lair was a bit too conspicuously shabby (as in NOT shabby-chic) and overly-decorated. It was as though they film maker(s) were trying to SCREAM, "Hey look, the Gimp can be hip, too, just like you and me, whoopeeeeee!" To all of you PC party-poopers (hehe, [party][popcorn]) out there, I'm not stating that physically disabled people cannot attain coolness. Quite the contrary. They can! What I AM saying is that in this particular instance, all the effortless hipness was hard to fully fathom when Cal had all the fashion sense of Elmer Fudd.

4) The fact that the disabled character was housed in what looked like a ramshackle outbuilding, apart from his parents posh pad was ... well, almost a cruel and inhumane touch. In the script, as spoken by Cal, it was because his folks couldn't spring for renovations. Really? Then, why even guy your kid a ramp to enter his home? That is, if you are going to even START making your place handicapped-friendly by building a ramp, albeit a rickety one (as observed by Kelly, onscreen) the why not follow through? Or, don't even start at all, I say! I didn't understand that "logic". But, it really bothered me that the handicapped character was relegated to living like a pet dog possibly would. I'll bet that sucker wasn't insulated in the winter, pfffft!

5) Ready? Set! MOBILITY!!!
This REALLLLY threw me for quite the loop. Soon after Kelly and Cal were chattily, cosily ensconced in his backyard lair, he crossed his legs one time without aid! Let me repeat that: He crossed his legs, without aid, the first time. The second time, the actor must have realised his error, because he used his other hand to assist the process, but, the first time he effortlessly crossed his legs, in the same manner that any mobile person would have, or I would have. That was when I reallllly began to clock out [out][out].

But wait, there's more fun, games and Tom-foolery ...

6) OK, so ...Kelly dyed her hair turquoise (How many Manic Panic users just threw away their unused bottles of dye?), and ... ended up wearing something that had all the ill-fitting appeal of a poorly-hued HORSEHAIR wig! Lewis should have thought of renegotiating her contract by that point, if doing that didn't already occur to her. Even I (or Ron Popeil for God's sake!) could wear a wig more convincingly than did Ms. Lewis.

7) The first shot of baby Jackson (cool name, though. I'll give 'em that) looked like a newborn whereas subsequent shots of The Tike were of a baby that looked considerably older, possible by a few months older, whereas time had not elapsed to that degree in the film. The chronology did not match the time sequence.
Am I wording this correctly? Not sure ... [odd][odd]

8) The scene wherein Kelly came upon the insane clown posse of (rival? point-counterpoint?) gaggle of yummy Mummies (most "to be" and preggos) in the park, was almost too comical to be tolerated. I bust a gut laughing (not with, but AT!) the preposterousness of them charging dues to belong to their group, after of course having prospective members ... wait for it ... fill out applications!
I mean, please ...

9) The insertion of family members as BUFFOONISH sidekicks is as old and comedically fatiguing as are Don Rickles' one-liners! C'mon, people. I'm not sure what the intent was here. Was it to make Kelly and Cal's family members look cartoonish (except Cybill Shepherd, sans makeup, who looked almost ghoulish) so that everyone else would look serious and hence, more sympathetic? Whatever the intent was, it didn't work, and all the over-acting that resulted from the fam having to ham it up only made the silliness of the picture all the more forcibly fed upon us / crammed down our throats. I love silly done well. The British, in the form of the Monty Pythons, do silly brilliantly. However I quite mind silly done as an agit-prop device where I feel as though I'm being told "Yo, yuck it up, now!" Reminds me of game show audience members being told to "Applaud, now!". And the unctious sister's gummy smile had me thinking that gum recession ainn't such a bad thing.

10) Ahhhhhh yes ... Lewis' punk and band cred both on and off screen.
(Oy vey, I've just been sent to Shiksa Hell, by a Jew no less!)
OK, so let me get this one straight: The band's name was "Wetnap" (wait, whaaaaaa?) and its first hit was about ... uh-ohhhh, here come that dramatic juncture in the narrative again, sheesh ... a ... wet nap!
>> Day-umn who writes this stuff, dyspeptic nuns?

All in all, what made the film bearable at all for me, to the degree that it was watchable before I departed in quasi-disgust, were the two beers I consumed during the viewing of the thing, sold in the cinema. [yes][yes]

Now, that's what I'm talkin' about! [cheers]

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] DogtownGirl 10 years ago

If you see this film, you might only end up walking out of it.

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] k_smith1 9 years ago

He never moved his leg without aid. He very clearly uses his hand to cross his leg, and he does so again to move it back.

[–] DogtownGirl 9 years ago

I disagree. I saw the actor (in character) move in the manner that I posted.
I get that the picture was low budget, but still ... 😮

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] k_smith1 9 years ago

I just watched it. And rewatched it. And I guarantee you he did not. You don't have to like the movie but this argument is invalid.

[–] DogtownGirl 9 years ago

I do not appreciate having what I say invalidated. You don't have to agree with what I say, ever, but to call anything I say "invalid" is the HEIGHT of insulting.
Alright?
Thank you.
Now, make your day a better one, please.

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] k_smith1 9 years ago

I think you're trolling but I'm not quite sure. Unfortunately, this isn't a matter of opinion. Much of what you said in your first post is but this isn't. This is actually fact vs. fiction. The fact of the matter is that you are wrong. I am not "invalidating" your opinion, I am "invalidating" an argument that simply cannot be. You cannot argue something when it is proven to not be true. And you can't say, "well it's what I saw" because...you saw wrong. Your argument holds no more clout than me trying to argue the name of it is actually not "Kelly & Cal" but something else.

It's okay to be wrong. It's okay to have thought you saw something but actually be mistaken. However, it is definitely embarrassing to be trying to argue against fact.

[–] DogtownGirl 9 years ago

Mr. Smith:

I am not feeling one bit embarrassed, right now but I do thank you very much for your expressed concern for me. Really, I do. Yes. I allow you to have YOUR opinion and NOT try to sway you to think as I think. I would only and merely ask that you give me the same allowance, alright?

I DO hope that this is not an unreasonable thing to ask you to do. I do hope that my assumption that you can be much more understanding of people who disagree with you is not all in vain. Yes, I do.

Adieu,

~~ DG

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] k_smith1 9 years ago

I'm very understanding about people who disagree with me. I disagree with the majority of your first post but haven't brought it up once. You're confusing opinion with fact. You can't have an opinion that the actor did something, when in fact, if you were to watch--you would see he didn't. This matter contains no amount of opinion. Adieu.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

Well said, k_smith.

People seem to think that opinions can't be wrong. But if the opinion is based on a something that is inaccurate, then that makes the opinion inaccurate (i.e. WRONG).

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

You don't have to agree with what I say, ever, but to call anything I say "invalid" is the HEIGHT of insulting.

I think it's more insulting to accuse a movie (and an actor) of something it (he) didn't do.

[–] Eddie_Riggs 9 years ago

You are correct. He never crossed his leg without using his arms. Thus the OP's complaint *is* invalid. If they consider that insulting then I suggest next time they pay closer attention to the film they are criticizing.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

I agree. I came here before watching the movie and noticed this thread so I was looking for this during the movie. If he did do what the OP suggests (which I don't think he did) it certainly wasn't a big enough deal to ruin an entire film.

I doubt anyone walked out on this b/c of that scene.

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

I'll try to address all your points...

(I'm unable to cut and paste your quotes since you blacked out the text I'm trying to quote)

1. Their marriage was starting to fail. That's why the chemistry was weird. It had nothing to do with the actors, it was the characters.

2. Movies are only about 90 minutes to 2 hrs long. Things tend to go a little faster in movies. It's definitely not a deal-breaker.

3. I thought it was a dump. Looked like a teenage boy lived there. Oh wait, that's what they were going for. Mission accomplished.

4. It's not "illogical" for people to be selfish jerks. I thought the resale value line was great. It said so much about the family. I was under the impression that Cal preferred his little shack as he wanted to be alone.

5. This has been discussed by several posters already. The consensus is that you are mistaken. I agree with everybody else. If he did move his leg, it was unnoticeable to 99% of the people out there. Certainly not enough to ruin this movie.

6. Okay, you're just bitching about hair here.

7. Baby stuff, not a big deal. I didn't notice it. Probably b/c I wasn't looking for reason to dislike this movie.

8. This is actually a real thing. It's absurd, but it is true.

9. I don't even know what to say here. It's absurd, but there are people like that. People who are bored always try to interfere. It happens. People talk, come up with crazy stuff, then try to "help" the people they were talking about even if they don't need help.

10. It's just not weird to me that a suburban house wife in 2014 could have been in a band in the 90s.

It's fine that you didn't enjoy the film (I did, and I wasn't expecting much), but alot of your gripes are pretty trivial.

[–] DogtownGirl 9 years ago

Hi there!

I didn't block out the text. I just hid it from people who had not yet seen the movie, is all! I didn't want to spoil anything for anyone.

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] doggie_rodriguez 9 years ago

I didn't say you "blocked out" the text. I said you "blacked out" the text.

Yeah, I got what you were doing. I was unable to cut and paste it b/c it was "hidden".

[–] Lady_Elaine_Fairchild 8 years ago

I am watching this right now (stopped to refill my coffee and check the IMDB rating)
So far (I'll edit this when I am finished with the movie)

1) Her husband and she are not supposed to have chemistry insofar as I have watched.

And the scene in the park with the other mother the "You can't sit with us" attitude crap also rings very very true to me. The fact that they all were in their Mommy uniform of black yoga pants and pastel tops.

I will look for the leg moving lol

As a renaissance chick, I paint, write, and sing loudly off-key.
Conceive Deceive or Leave

[–] JARowlands 8 years ago

I agree that Kelly’s turquoise hair obviously looked like a wig. For me it was distracting. I think Hollywood could have done better.

However, on Cal’s place, he explained it in the movie. He said his parents didn’t want to make the main home handicap accessible because they thought it would hurt the resale value. He also said his father didn’t want to build a better ramp because he was in denial. He thought his son’s paralysis was temporary and he would be able to walk again soon due to upcoming medical breakthroughs.

[–] cpoet 8 years ago

Agree that the wig is horrendous. Silly that such a small detail kept taking me out of the movie, but really: poor decision. You have to get up into the $10k range for a wig so extreme to look natural and this movie doesn't have that kind of budget.

I am so impressed that Juliette Lewis, an actress I've never liked very much, has grown into such a mature, solid talent.

I thought the actor, Jonny __________, held his own and I'm going to follow his career. (Once I double-check the last name, heh.)

The sister-in-law was so awful, I congratulated myself on never having had one.

I thought it unlikely the mommy group would be such a bunch of bitches, since everyone can appreciate the isolation and anxiety of dealing with new babies. BUT then I remembered being so happy to find a dog park near my house in a new city. I went there and everyone was standoffish and kind of rude. I found out later that the park was self-supporting and I needed to go pay a fee and get a tag. Well, gee, thanks so much for welcoming me to the neighborhood and filling me in on the details.
***************

There are a couple of scenes I'd fast-forward through, but mostly this movie makes me think that next time I'm about to be snarky, maybe I should just be kind, instead. That's a pretty good takeaway.

[–] Howlin Wolf 8 years ago

The 'chemistry' between Kelly and her husband was supposed to be flat - for 99% of the movie, we see them going through a rough period in their marriage.

I don't think we're privy to how long a time period the movie covers? Just because we SEE it happen quickly doesn't mean it did... In real life, time would be taken up by dead spots where nothing happened, which were presumably left out of the movie for the sake of telling the story a certain way... Even if it was quick, sometimes people just click instantly depending on personality type; there are no hard and fast rules about this. What's important is whether or not we buy the rapport, not the time it takes to develop.

Don't get me wrong - I didn't like the movie, either... but your first two points are fairly easily addressed.



"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

[–] mochteam 8 years ago

These are really naggy/nitpicky reasons to bash a film. I didn't think the film was the greatest thing but it served it's point. Kelly felt she abandoned her life and her individuality to become a bored housewife with controlling inlaws and a husband that was never home. Cal came along and offered her a new experience and getting to feel appreciated for being herself and rebellious again. The movie served it's point well enough that you could understand why Kelly wanted to break out from her life. The only thing I didn't like about the movie is that Kelly never got to share her voice with her husband about what really bothered her and that was his family butting in on their lives. It ended on a rather soft note. Than having the husband telling his mom and sister to give them privacy in their marriage and Josh stepping up to pay more attention to his wife and realizing she still had aspirations of her own. That was one of the things he was insensitive too. Cal's ending never really amounted to a resolution other than what I felt was a rub on his back and a good luck with your future. She played with his emotions and Cal was in a weak mental state of self worth from everything he had been through. He had no one but Kelly to help him escape his newly restricted world he lived in. She was his coping mechanism. Mostly I think it was just how the movie ended that made it weak it should of finished stronger with Kelly and Cal being more assertive about taking control of their lives and not letting their lives be controlled by the conditions around them.

[–] DogtownGirl 8 years ago

Well, one man's picky is another's necessary criticism.
The mistakes that I pointed out to you might not have LEAPT out at you, but ... they surely darn-near strangled me, with their obviousness.

** There MUST be more than one way to skin this Cat! **

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lamont-hard 7 years ago

I agree that she and her husband had no chemistry, especially as actors.