Director: Paul Dektor
Writers: Theodore Melfi, Christopher Wehner
Stars: Peter Dinklage, Shirley MacLaine, Kimberly Quinn
Synopsis: Phil’s a dreamer. Most dreams don’t come true. Phil hates that. But that’s not going to stop Phil from dreaming.
The concept of the American Dream is a goal chased by many film protagonists. It’s a way for the audience to connect with a character. We’ve all chased this concept in some form or another. It could be entrepreneurship, a scientific breakthrough, athleticism, or some other form of amassing fame and wealth. What makes Phil (Peter Dinklage) different from the audience is that, as an economics professor, he knows that wealth is relative and assets are the key to real financial power.
It’s a very 1770s concept of the American Dream. If you own some land or property, you have the power. Phil believes that if he can somehow buy a house, things will start looking up for him. He wants to use an industrial sealant on the paper cut of his issues. This is where the film should keep its focus. Phil’s struggles with the concept of not coming close to affording a house. It’s a problem that many of us face because, unlike our parents, our first salaries didn’t afford us even the possibility of a down payment on a house. Yet, the script pulls a few threads and becomes a bit tangled.
Screenwriter Theodore Melfi and screen story creator Christopher Wehner throw a lot of ideas at the wall and try to make them all stick. In addition to his passion for economics, Phil is also an aspiring novelist. He’s a cliché in that when grad student Claire (Michelle Mylett) gushes over his paper, the two of them start a relationship. He starts another affair with Maggie (Kimberly Quinn) who is attempting to get him to back out of his deal with Astrid (Shirley MacLaine) because Maggie believes Phil’s scamming Astrid. These threads do resolve, but it’s almost like the writers tried to tell the story from a few different angles and decided on everything instead of sticking with one idea.
There are many scenes that don’t quite work, mainly because they haven’t been earned with enough set up. The end of the film especially doesn’t earn the big hearted wrap-up. It’s likely because there are too many ideas at play to really get emotionally involved with Phil or his problems. While we understand why he unravels, we don’t understand how he’s going to continue after becoming whole. Though, these problems don’t matter because the film, in spite of itself, is entirely watchable.
It feels like a dramedy from the late ’90s or early 2000s. Something mid-budget that would star two top actors at the time, or at least a commanding star presence on either side of the gender divide. It’s your basic package that feels cozy and lived in. It doesn’t do anything fancy or flashy, but moves forward pleasantly even with a prickly hero because we know he has a dream and a heart that can grow.
That coziness is thanks to the always curmudgeonly, but loveable Peter Dinklage. He’s an actor with the presence to make an uninteresting man into an intriguing one. He’s completely in command of this character like it’s one he has in his back pocket at all times. He’s played every kind of character one can, but it’s the simple ones like Phil that remind you how good he is. He can make anything more watchable.
All in all, American Dreamer has its moments. It’s not quite the next great film you’re going to watch, but if you want something to relax into that might suck you in in spite of yourself, American Dreamer is the one. There are much worse ways to spend 98 minutes.
