Patch Adams"Gee... I wonder if he'll win." A thought I had about one second into the trial of Patch Adams (Robin Williams), this single statement sums up everything wrong with this film. If you have an IQ higher than, oh, 1 you will know that he wins the trial. In fact, if you think I just spoiled the film for you, please stop reading this review, as many of the words may actually fly over your head. Just earlier this week I wrote a review of Stepmom, a sappy and sentimental Hollywood-formula film. Compared to PATCH ADAMS, Stepmom is a practice in subtlety.
Judging from the negative reviews I had heard concerning the film, I wasn't sure what to think. Going into the theater, I had a bias against the film already. I hate to see films when I have a bias such as this, but I was also surprised that it was nearly not as bad as everyone had been saying. It's a genuine crowd pleasure, and normally I fit into that crowd. But here, it is so smarmy and sentimental that even I was gagging in reaction to the proceedings on screen. It's pitiful to watch everyone get so hyped up over a film that is this ploying to watch. Admittedly, halfway through the film, I wanted to like it. I found myself smiling, but what I realized later was that I was being forced to like it. There was absolutely no restraint from the director to let me have a choice. It was as if he was saying, "You must like this movie." Frankly, I hate that.
The most obvious problem with this film is, in fact, the title: PATCH ADAMS. While it fits the film well, it gives away the largest problem that the film must overcome. While watching this motion picture, I began to realize that I didn't really care what happened to Adams. Instead, I wanted to know about Carin (Monica Potter), Truman (Daniel London), and Mitch (Philip Seymour Hoffman). I wanted to know why Carin seemed to hate men so much, and why Truman acted like a geek, seemingly on purpose. I wanted to know why Mitch hated Adams and called him a cheater. Instead, the film focuses on Hunter "Patch" Adams, a self-prescribed suicidal. And not surprisingly enough, Adams is a complete fool with a brilliant mind.
PATCH ADAMS begins in 1969 as Hunter Adams admits himself to a psychiatric clinic where he can get help for his suicidal tendencies. In the clinic, he finds doctors that are rude and uncaring, while the patients open up to his charming personality. Adams realizes that in order to help people, laughter is required. So he decides to enroll in medical school and become one. There, he watches as the other students are turned into inhumane people, calling patients by their disease and not by their name. His roommate, Mitch, studies furiously and yet watches Adams achieve higher grades without apparently even studying. For some reason or another, he decides to approach Carin, a pro-feminist student trying desperately to maintain good grades. She immediately dismisses him as another man just wanting to get in her pants. Adams' best friend, Truman, is an outsider, rejected by any girl he asks out. Of course, as we all know, Adams will change their lives for the better.
While I consider myself a rather intelligent film viewer, I do find most plots to be rather unpredictable, even when I probably should know what is coming. Here, however, I knew exactly what would happen from the moment the credits began. We are informed it is based on a true story, but really... does that make it any better? There is a moment during the film where Adams walks into a man's room wearing an angel costume. If a doctor ever walked into my room dressed like this, I'd be very offended. Is he mocking the man's imminent death with quips and one-liners, or is he trying to make him enjoy the final moments of his life? Obviously it was intended for the latter, but came off as the former. This kind of cheap drama is something one might find on a bad TV movie.
Thankfully (and surprisingly) screenwriter Steve Oedekerk, working from the novel by Patch himself, manages to give us some wonderful supporting characters. Leading them is Carin, a character so interesting that I was disappointed that she was relegated into the background for so long. Her dialogue is intelligent, humorous, and sharp. One of her lines is so mature and well-written that it is very disappointing to see it surrounded by these over-the-top comedic moments. "Men have been attracted to me all my life," she announces with shocking immediacy. It's a stunning moment in this bland film. Of course, Oedekerk then proceeds to screw up that moment with a melodramatic scene between Patch and a butterfly. Even I, the most emotional male critic you may ever find, found myself wanting to lean over the edge of my seat to allow the impending vomit a clear view of the floor.
One must comment on the plot which is probably the most predictable of the year. It appears that the filmmakers took all the aspects from Robin Williams' previous films, packed them into a blender, and then hit puree. This is a fitting description, as the result is a mess of storytelling. One event leads to another, but there is no foundation. There is no plot, really. Oedekerk seems to have written all the aspects of Adams' life down on puzzles pieces and then put them together as best as he could. Close to the beginning of the film, Patch and Truman walk into a meeting for lovers of meat. This might possibly be the most unimportant plot aspect ever written for any film ever made. There is absolutely no point in this scene, as Patch wins meat races, gives upbeat speeches, and ridicules vegetarians. Exactly what purpose this serves to the main plot is inconsequential; apparently, it serves only to show off Robin Williams' talents for going over-the-top. And then there's the courtroom scene. When used properly, a trial can be an effective way to end a film. When used inappropriately (as it is here), it seems more like a plea for an upbeat ending. This trial sequence has what I refer to as a Disney moment. Disney made it famous: the climactic moment approaches, the tension supposedly begins to mount--suddenly, the extras in the film begin to do something stupid, cheering on the protagonist. Here, it's the children that gather in the courtroom... the same children with cancer that he cheered up earlier. They all put red noses on and smile. If that isn't bad enough, the audience stands and applauds as Adams wins the trial. It's one of those sequences where all logic and intelligence is thrown out the window.
Williams, in fact, is one of the biggest problems with the film. I'm not sure how the real Hunter Adams acted, but if it was anything like Williams' portrayal, it isn't hard to see why the Dean wants to throw him out of medical school. Williams has done this role continuously throughout his year, from Dead Poet's Society to Good Will Hunting (with a little bit of Mrs. Doubtfire added for humor). He was born to play these roles. Monica Potter (last seen in Con Air) is a glimmer of sunshine here, providing an emotional pivot. She isn't in the film long enough to become a fully-realized character, but Potter one-ups Williams by acting normally. Philip Seymour Hoffman (Happiness) also has a couple good scenes, though he only really has two scenes to begin with. Daniel London can't help his underdeveloped character, becoming a victim of Williams' overpowering presence. Bob Gunton as Dean Walcott tries his best to add some depth to his one-dimensional character. Obviously his character was written in purely for villianous purposes, yet his logical reasonings make complete sense. And of special note, there's Harve Presnell (Fargo) in a purely obligatory role.
PATCH ADAMS is rated PG-13 for strong language, crude humor, and nudity. The nudity portrayed in PATCH ADAMS is unnecessary and distracting, and I highly doubt that the real Patch Adams cut the back of his graduation uniform off to expose his bare behind. The musical cues by Marc Shaiman are so obvious and shameless that I was paying more attention to which instrument played when as opposed to the actual story. While audiences are bound to love this film, it is bound to leave a bad taste in the mouth of anyone seeking a thoughtful, witty film. It's a shame too... this could have been a very nice thought-provoking film.