How entertaining? ★★★☆☆
Thought provoking? ★☆☆☆☆ 13 November 2012
This a movie review of STARBUCK. |
“You’re probably one of the few people who can cope in a situation as screwed up as this one.”
When a film opens on a guy masturbating for audience “laughs”, you know that it’s not going to be a Michael Haneke inspired pic. Never explaining why the lead David Wozniak uses the alias “Starbuck” when donating sperm, I wonder if it’s a reference to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? Regardless, his 693 donations to a fertility clinic, over 23 months from 1988-90 comes back to haunt David 20 years later. After some complications, the sperm bank used his deposits to a huge degree. David is tracked down and presented with a class action lawsuit – of the 533 children unknowingly sired, 142 want to discover their biological father’s real identity.
When a film opens on a guy masturbating for audience “laughs”, you know that it’s not going to be a Michael Haneke inspired pic. Never explaining why the lead David Wozniak uses the alias “Starbuck” when donating sperm, I wonder if it’s a reference to BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? Regardless, his 693 donations to a fertility clinic, over 23 months from 1988-90 comes back to haunt David 20 years later. After some complications, the sperm bank used his deposits to a huge degree. David is tracked down and presented with a class action lawsuit – of the 533 children unknowingly sired, 142 want to discover their biological father’s real identity.
|
|
David’s secret is just one of his worries:
- Totally unreliable, he stretches the patience of his two brothers and father at their family butcher business,
- Girlfriend Valérie, who is sick of his sporadic attendance in her life, is now pregnant, and
- Two guys have a penchant for almost drowning him until he repays a debt of $80,000.
It’s present day Montreal, Canada and we’re in man-child needs-to-learn-responsibility-comedy territory. Everything is signposted after the first 10 minutes. Slick, colourful and with an enjoyably bumbling protagonist, these elements can’t quite elevate the formula from the tired stylings. The pinballing Starbuck, causing mild havoc, prevents tedium; but the sentimentality ladled on thicker than school custard sticks in the throat. We’re not in the arena of Spike Lee’s SHE HATE ME, attempting to explore accountability. Rather, realism is chucked out of the window. David’s best bud is also a kinda practicing lawyer, who agrees to defend Starbuck’s right to anonymity. Meanwhile David starts to seek out his children, and feels a duty to help where he can.
Perhaps the filmmakers love MY NAME IS EARL and AMELIE? The leap from lack of focus, to suddenly helping, with montages, is pure fantasy. And there is pleasure in watching David secretly helping his progeny. However, this movie experience is superficial. That’s fine for those after a vacuous slice of minor entertainment. But those wanting something grounded in more psychological probing, and parental dissection, will have to look elsewhere. And if you have a weak stomach for mawkishness, make sure you bring a sick bag for the denouement.