“Would you like coffee?
– Yes.
How do you take it?
– In the mouth..?”

B.J. Novak’s film debut, Vengeance, comes strong out of the gate like an angry bull at a rodeo with clever quips, sharp characters, and a plot just transparent enough to be fun. However, like said bull, if you’ve seen one bucking in the sand pit… you’ve seen them all.

In Vengeance, we follow Ben Manalowitz as he tries to make a name for himself by becoming a voice that actually has something to say. He’s a writer, but he wants to be so much more; and when he gets a strange call imploring him to come to the funeral of a girl he hardly knew, he sees his chance.

If you’ve seen any one of a thousand Hallmark dramas, you’ve already seen the DNA of this film. Big-city-boy living the “modern life” goes to a small-Texas-town for a selfish reason and becomes enamored with the people, the sights, and the belonging while making some comical blunders along the way and then insulting them as a generalized group, right before he learns the true meaning of [insert "family", "Christmas", "love", or some other traditional concept here].

This film is certainly deeper than those dime-novel style shows that run on your parents’ TV during the holidays, but not by much; and it only gets away with what it does because it’s a satire on modern society... Though one that’s fed to the audience with a spoon a few sizes too big.

The first ⅔ of the film are mostly funny, and the arc – though obvious – is enjoyable because of a well acted cast of characters that are truly charming… if also entirely cliché and incredibly derogatory [again, satire, so… it’s kind of the point]. The biggest problem with the experiences arises from two places: Act 3, and the editing.

Imagine a rollercoaster that zooms you around your first couple of turns, shoots you up to the top of the drop… waits… waits… tips… and then leisurely lets you down to the bottom and through the last few twists while reciting prose about the meaning of frivolous entertainment. That’s… kind of the pacing here. For the first two acts, the film is funny [a little artless, but funny] and mostly engaging. You’re interested where it will end up. Then, just as you’re seeing the drop and inadvertently holding your breath… it drags to a halt and gets very serious, very suddenly, following the most predictable “hello this is what the movie is about” parking-lot diatribe it could conjure up.

The last part of the film is a completely different tone than the previous two and, while not bad, simply feels out of place; all before ending with two more monologues that feed you the rest of the point. While I’m not against exposition, the problem with the exposition in this film comes largely from problem number 2: The editing.

Right out the gate, this film should have been around 7-minutes shorter. It’s got a great pace through the beginning and the middle, but not much happening towards the end of that middle. With a few seconds cut from various places, we end up with a significantly tighter piece, and one that flows better into the finale.

Additionally [and this is partly a cinematography issue], several scenes in the film feature a ridiculous number of cuts where they should have been single takes. An early scene around a family dinner is very funny and a great introduction to the cast, however, it’s also incredibly boring to watch because you don’t feel like you’re a part of the gathering. You just feel like an observer.

Because of the way this movie is cut and shot, you never actually feel like anything is happening around or with you, just that it IS happening. There’s no connection to the viewer, you're just and only that: A viewer. By changing how some of these scenes are constructed, the audience would actually get to feel like part of the story -- like they are investigating right alongside Ben, or getting to know this family by sitting at the table with them -- instead of just observing what he’s doing.

It’s really too bad. Single takes, or even just editing cuts to make it look like a single take, is not only more impressive from a performance standpoint, but is significantly more engaging and intimate for an audience. There are several scenes that suffer from this, and they all suffer in exactly the same way. Instead of being a personal and active journey, Vengeance is simply voyeuristic... and a little tedious.

All of that said, I like what B.J. Novak is trying to do here. The overall theme of the film isn’t that different from season 1 of the 90’s hit, Twin Peaks. Did you really know them, or did you just know their persona? More importantly… Do you want to really know them now that they’re gone, or do you want to simply remember the person that you knew?

I like that, and I like reflecting on the film’s themes and narrative now that it's over… but those aren't things that needed an hour and forty-seven minutes to get across. They only needed one interesting monologue that doesn't show up until the last 7 or so minutes of the film, and is presented with so many cuts and so little visual nutrition that it almost works better with no video at all.

I look forward to his future projects, and I hope that he keeps tackling interesting issues and themes. I just hope that Vengeance is a step along a path of growth, and not the culmination of his craft. B.J. Novak has something to say, now he just needs to figure out the right way to say it.

“Everything means everything, so nothing means anything.”