ジョン・クラシンスキーの『IF』は完全な失敗作

映画の宇宙 の世界では、 IFが存在することは意味をなさない。IFは、今ではめったに見られないような、 ハリウッドで制作されたオリジナルの大予算映画だからそう言っているのだろうと思われるかもしれない。しかし、それはまったく違う。私たちが言いたいのは、厳格な規範やストーリーテリングのルールに縛られた映画の海の中で、どういうわけかIFはそれをまったく考慮せずに作られた ということだ。ルールを作り、ルールを破り、ストーリーラインを開始して決して報われず、その過程で非常に腹立たしい映画を生み出すため、得られたわずかな好意はすぐに窓の外に消えてしまう。過去数十年間にハリウッドが学んだことはすべて、IFには適用されなかった。

映画「オフィス」のスターで「クワイエット・プレイス」の監督でもあるジョン・クラシンスキーが脚本と監督を務めた「 IF」は、子供たちが空想上の友達（IFと呼ばれる）を持つ世界についての話だが、子供たちが成長してその友達のことを忘れても、IFはそのまま残る。その世界で、ビー（ケイリー・フレミング）という名の少女は、自分がIFを見ることができることに気づく。どうやって？なぜ？心配はいらない。彼女は、同じくIFを見ることができる隣人のキャル（ライアン・レイノルズ）とチームを組み、忘れられたIFを空想上の友達のいない新しい子供たちと一致させようとする。少なくとも、それが映画の前半だ。後半はまた別の話だが、それについては後でまた触れる。

Now, obviously, we’re not taking issue with the idea of “Why do these magical creatures exist?” It’s a fantasy family movie. The idea is admittedly interesting and we can get behind it. No, it’s the little things. Right from the beginning you are left with questions that never get answered. Questions like, why can only Bea and Cal see all the IFs? Where do IFs come from? How do you make a new one? Not all of these have to be answered—but nevertheless, they linger. Cal is also quite the enigma, a downtrodden, borderline angry character because he feels a huge weight of responsibility from his power. Why is that? We never find out. We’ll also never quite know why Reynolds was cast as someone who smiles maybe twice in a movie but that’s a whole other complaint.

There’s more. Attempting to help the IFs, Bea and Cal go on adventures all over New York City while Bea’s father, played by Krasinski himself, is in the hospital. We never find out why specifically he’s in the hospital [it’s implied to be heart surgery] but we go with it. While there, Dad always puts on a happy face for his daughter, making jokes and playing pranks on her. It’s sweet and, you think, the precursor to something that will pay off later. It doesn’t.

Instead, the notion works against another basic consideration. While Dad is in the hospital, Bea is supposed to be under the supervision of her grandmother (Fiona Shaw). However, Grandma never once questions why Bea is running around the city with an adult stranger (to places like Coney Island which is oddly locked up in the middle of a summer day). So if Dad is okay enough to dance around and hide in the closet, we’re left wondering why Bea doesn’t spend more time with him at the hospital or why he’s there at all.

We could go on and on questioning every single decision made in IF, but hopefully you get the point. The movie simply doesn’t feel thought out in any capacity. There are major questions about character and motivation. Huge holes in the basic narrative. All of it is ripe for nitpicking. And when you’re questioning the basic plot of the movie, instead of emotionally engaging in this fantasy story, it’s a huge problem.

With no real adherence to any sense of worldbuilding, eventually IF goes completely off the rails. About halfway through the film we realize placing IFs with new kids was not the point. No, actually, it’s about reuniting IFs with their now grown-up kids. Which, we have to admit, sounds amazing. We were legit excited for the movie to present a new idea that, we hoped, would save it. But very quickly, the frustration and disappointment came roaring back. The process the characters go through to do reunite is random and nonsensical. The IFs find their kid, reconnect in some way, and then... that’s it. They go home. We half thought they were going to IF heaven. Instead, a group of them have a party to celebrate a moment that came and went in an instant.

Some of this would’ve been forgivable if IF had been funny, but it’s not. It’s also not particularly charming because it’s so seeped in loss and regret. The voice cast, which is maybe the best ever assembled, is largely underused. Trailers make it seem it’s mostly about Blue, a big fluffy guy voiced by Steve Carell, but he’s only a small part of it. Actually, when you think about it, no one is really a “big” part of IF. It’s a lot of little pieces laid out the same table, but never put together.

All of this is especially true at the end when IF throws another curveball at you in the form of a Shyamalan twist. We won’t spoil the twist—but watching the film, the possibility of it crossed our minds fairly early but was quickly dismissed because we realized doing “that” would blatantly break several rules the film had previously set up and create even more plot holes and questions. So, of course, “that” is exactly what happens, adding one final cherry on top of this puzzling picture.

To not be a total downer, there are a few good things going on with IF. Fleming is completely charming as Bea, navigating between thinking she has to grow up and being a kid. The visual effects of the IFs are very good, especially when we see them close up. And Michael Giacchino’s string-forward score is a sure-fire earworm to go along with one or two amusing, IF-focused montages.

But even with all of that, IF just doesn’t work. Will kids watching a movie with big digital characters care about things like a cohesive plot? Probably not. But we cared. IF is a shining example of how original ideas have to be even more carefully scrutinized than adapted work. A failure for one of these is a failure for probably 10 more just like it.

すると疑問が湧いてくる。どうしてこんなことになったのか？ 映画製作にはプロセスが必要だということは、ほとんどの人が知っている。そして、そのプロセスの大部分は、脚本段階でのチェックとバランスのシステムだ。脚本家が脚本を書き、友人やプロデューサー、場合によっては俳優、そして『IF』のような大作映画の場合は幹部が脚本を読んで質問することになっている。「このキャラクターはどんな目的で演じるのか？ それはどのように機能するのか？ なぜ彼女はそれができるのか？」といった質問だ。しかし、『IF』では、ジョン・クラシンスキーにはそのどれもなかったかのようだ。確かにあったはずだが、この映画は的を外し、多くの大きな問題を無視しているため、基本的なDNAが欠けている。

IFは金曜日にオープンします。

io9 のニュースをもっと知りたいですか?マーベル 、スターウォーズ 、スタートレック の最新リリースがいつ予定されているか、映画やテレビでの DC ユニバースの今後の予定、ドクター・フーの将来について知っておくべきことをすべてチェックしてください。