Skip to main content

Ticket to Paradise is Shallow Charm and a Pretty Picture


Like its’ trailer, Ticket to Paradise wrings as much mileage as it can out of George Clooney and Julia Roberts’ charm and chemistry. It’s a smart move because they’re irresistible -a pair of old school movie stars who’ve worked opposite one another enough times to have an engaging and authentic rapport- reunited here in a context they have not been seen in, but that is quite familiar. Clooney and Roberts are a couple of the most “classic Hollywood” celebrities still out there, and this movie seems aware of that, drawn with something of a sincere evocation to a late Hepburn-Tracy affair, but played to the style of The Philadelphia Story or His Girl Friday.
This is all well and good of course, but clouding it is the inescapable cynicism of a movie that might just be giving its’ stars a vacation -a criticism often levied at bad Adam Sandler comedies about a decade ago. Indeed, this movie basks a lot in its’ gorgeous scenery, much of it set in tropical Bali (though actually filmed in Australia) -which seems to be something of a trademark for its’ director Ol Parker, whose last movie was the equally pristine Mama Mia: Here We Go Again! But as with the casting this too is often a distraction from how plain the story is, and how lacklustre its’ humour can be.
Clooney and Roberts are David and Georgia Cotton, bitter middle-aged exes united only where their daughter Lily (Kaitlyn Dever) is concerned. Shortly after graduating law school on a vacation to Bali, she meets and instantly falls in love with Gede (Maxime Bouttier), a local seaweed farmer. The parents, convinced their daughter is making a big mistake, conspire to fly down and put a stop to the wedding in an average case of valid parental concerns being exaggerated into overreach.
Not that I’m complaining, rom-coms by nature are an exaggerated genre, but the movie certainly doesn’t give much credence to the idea that a recent college-grad marrying a boy she just met in another culture and country is in any way rash. We’re meant to be swayed by Gede’s charms and Lily’s exuberance in spite of the what her parents think -though we’re meant to relate to them as well. See there’s a governing idea towards this films’ love-at-first-sight notion that is fundamentally confused. Sympathy is drawn to the parents’ point of view from the start, wherein they relate a similar kind of impulsive love story that then crashed and burned within five years. So we understand their desperation to prevent Lily from going through the same thing. At the same time though, we’re expected to buy into this spontaneous romance being good for Lily in spite of the precedent, without much but empty assurances of love and commitment to argue the case. Maybe if Lily and Gede were foregrounded more -but then this isn’t their story as much as the parents’. The issue is in the script being bound by its’ premise, prevented from conveying a distinctiveness to this love story that would keep it from being shallow, and keep the movie itself from being thematically incoherent.
The script also leaves something to be desired in the humour, which is often flat, if bolstered slightly by the talents of its’ cast. A lot of the jokes have a generic flavour and the comedic situations almost universally lack bite. The one exception to this is Billie Lourd, playing Lily’s best friend Wren, who brings her own smarmy charisma and the sense of a fun personality through her comic beats. Lourd is not in this movie nearly enough, and yet is one of its’ greatest assets. Certainly she fares better than either Dever or Bouttier, the straight couple in the most literal sense, wholesome and boring for the major life decision they are about to make together. It really does fall entirely to Clooney and Roberts to make the film entertaining, and there’s only so much they can do. They are at their best when the characters are at their worst, engaging in underhanded schemes to stop the wedding, such as stealing the rings from a little girl or planting the seeds of doubt in Gede’s mind. Both actors have that streak of wickedness in their comedy roles, Clooney especially, and they are less at home when having to be sincere -which of course is the ultimate outcome of the romantic-comedy. Likewise when they must do the embarrassing parents routine, playing beer pong while dancing to 80s music, it is similarly strained.
The stunning locales do a lot of the heavy lifting for this films’ cinematography and Parker’s direction, both of which are otherwise mediocre. The movie is bathed in a sheen of pretty tropicana , which only accentuates  the vapid plotting set against it. Ticket to Paradise has no real interest in its’ paradise beyond the aesthetic, the cultural practices of the local Indonesians exoticized around what’s plot-relevant. In a certain respect it is that perfect fantasy of a romantic, beautiful world that gives little credence to what’s outside. Even for a romantic-comedy it’s simple, and that simplicity is reflected in every fibre, as much as the Cottons (such a white name) might endeavour to inject chaos into it. I’m not sure how much Parker means this genuinely or how much is accidental -the cultural reductionism I’m certain must have been. There’s an underpinning notion of this world winning over the outsiders, first Lily, and then her parents slowly being endeared to it -ultimately even to a slightly primitivist impression. But there’s a lack of sincerity needed to sell that -as much as the movie has its’ charms, its’ characters can’t relate. Both David and Georgia are rich enough to hop on a plane to Bali at the last minute (the movie consciously puts them in economy class to taper that fact), and Lily by association is pretty well off in her vacation prospects, as seems to be the case too of Gede’s “humble family” -for all of their simple ways they run a pretty refined resort. The perfections are overwhelming and thus the fantasy is lost.
This movie doesn’t care a whole lot about the structure of its’ format beyond adhering to it in only the most basic form. Reconciliation between the leads comes without  buildup so much as resignation -oh Georgia’s poor French boyfriend. At times, Ticket to Paradise can’t escape the celebrity holiday aspect of its’ marketing, and even as wish fulfillment it falls short. Clooney and Roberts work well together, most of their interactions have the flavour of something cute, though their Benedick and Beatrice routine isn’t written to the calibre they deserve. This is a movie made to play on model TVs while shopping the electronics section of a department store. Pretty and calming and slick, but too shallow under the imagery.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...