It must be very nice to be you.
I have struggled with how to begin this review for a couple of reasons, I think. It’s the most negative review I’ve had to write in a while and, to complicate matters, it’s from a filmmaker that I’m not sure I’ve ever given an over-all negative review to before. And it’s not just that this is Sofia Coppola being weaker than usual; like I often say The Hateful 8 is Tarantino’s weakest film, but I would certainly say that it is still a very good film. This isn’t that. On the Rocks is just a bad film in just about every way and it’s particularly awful that it is that because Sofia Coppola is a genuine auteur that I don’t really think has made a bad film prior to this. Sure, I’ve had problems with creative decisions Coppola has made before, but I guess this is the difference. Let’s use Marie Antoinette as an example. A lot of people really don’t like the music-video aesthetic that she brings to that movie. But she is bringing something very singular and very personal to that movie. She’s up to something there and, frankly, she almost always is. It’s not generic, you know what I mean? She’s got a historical biopic going on and she’s very purposely creating a kind of clash between the aesthetics of historical biopics and teen movies and by doing this she’s, I think, reevaluating the way we view historical figures, the way we don’t think of people like Marie Antoinette as being, you know, just teenagers or whatever. And I get why some people dislike that choice, but it is a choice and it’s interesting to watch, even if you decide you don’t like it, and it’s interesting to think about and to talk about. That’s the way Coppola’s movies are often flawed, when they are flawed: in very singular, interesting, thought-provoking ways. This movie is flawed because it is so utterly, painfully generic. There isn’t a single personal note here. Nothing about this movie feels like it was curated and cared about in the way that usually basically everything in a Coppola movie feels.
And look, there’s some potential here. I usually like Rashida Jones. Coppola is also often criticized for the overwhelming whiteness of her movies, so it’s interesting to see her featuring a main character of color. And, in a more meta sense, I was interested by the notion of a kind of twenty-years-later spiritual sequel to Lost in Translation, Bill Murray rambling around a city with a younger woman, but now the younger woman is his daughter and she’s nearly middle aged herself. Seems like an interesting wrinkle. But no. I’ve also been hearing people saying that Bill Murray is good in this movie. He’s not. At all. I’m a guy who appreciates subtle performances, minimal performances and nothing annoys me more than when a comedian turns in a sensitive, precise and very nuanced performance and everyone gripes that “he didn’t even DO anything.” But this time? He really DID NOT do anything. He just seems tired and kind of bored and in some scenes you wonder if that’s really the best they thought they could get. But this feels overall like a movie made in a hurry; the pacing of the movie is languid, but technically it feels very rushed. Even the editing is bad and do you have any idea how bad the editing has to be in a character piece like this for me to notice it on a casual first viewing? In an action movie, bad editing is obvious; but in a movie like this, it should be invisible. But it isn’t; the cuts are clumsy, the comedic beats are just a beat or two too slow and it’s just overall a movie where it feels like everyone was just kind of burned out already on day one. Too bad. Coppola’s a treasure. Like I said, she’s always up to something. This time, it’s no good. ½ star.
tl;dr – incredibly generic movie features lazy performances, an overall atmosphere of carelessness and note a single personal touch of any interest; Coppola’s finally made a bad film and it’s a doozy. ½ star.