He's Just Not That Into You (Theatre) - Both

As romcoms go this wasn’t bad. It did, however, do exactly what it preached it wouldn’t do, but I expected that. We all know the ending of any romcom contains the couple happily living ever after, and while this wasn’t the case for all of our lovelorn losers the majority of these pairings were happily engaged in committed relationships by the end. And, for a movie that espouses that men don’t really like women I feel this film betrayed its message. This American version of Love, Actually (2004) seemed to falter only in its inability to truthfully kill relationships.

The couple that the movie based most of its message on was Gigi and Alex, delightfully played by Ginnifer Goodwin and Justin Long, respectively. Alex reveals a great truth to Gigi when he sees her crash and burn with his friend Conor, and thus strikes up a friendship with the lovable loser. As she navigates the sea of men in Alex’s bar he steers her around some of the more obvious icebergs that present themselves to her and she eventually falls for Alex. Now, anyone could have seen this coming, but I didn’t mind the obvious nature of this relationship. However, what Gigi took as signs that Alex was into her were figments of her imagination and Alex rebuffs her telling her what he has said all along, to paraphrase, if a guy really likes you he will find a way to let you know.

Conor and Anna make up the second pairing and portray the same message but in a gender reversal, if a girl really likes you she will find a way to let you know. Conor, played by Kevin Connolly, mopes about the screen longing for Anna, his one time partner, but she obviously has no interest in that sort of relationship. She toys with him, calling him up in the middle of the night, hugging him as she leaves each time, and engaging him in conversations about how their relationship should have worked out, but ultimately she likes Ben.

Janine and Ben, skillfully played by Jennifer Connelly and the affable Bradley Cooper, were the only couple to actually be sunk by the choppy waters of love. Ben’s wandering eye got the better of him as he broke his wedding vows with the aforementioned Anna, Scarlett Johansson, and Janine eventually found out. Janine then forgave him, but Ben’s oats got the better of him and he fell back into his cheating ways.

The last couple of note, Beth and Neil, played by Jennifer Aniston and Ben Affleck, portray a couple who have been dating for seven years but due to Neil’s desires to never get married are stuck in a place that makes Beth feel uncomfortable.

The characters are well played by all the actors with Aniston, Goodwin, and Connelly standing out, and this leads me to pause and say, that when actors take romcoms seriously they can surpass the genre and create an enjoyable viewing experience for all involved. The writing wasn’t amazing, not that it was bad, it just didn’t stand out, but the actors played their roles thoughtfully and it showed.

Alex eventually figures out that he wanted to be with Gigi and lets her know. This to me seemed somewhat weird and against message, but they were a cute couple in the end. Neil eventually learns that if he truly wants to spend the rest of his days with Beth, then they should get married. This, again, goes against message, but it plays to the audience. So again, this film betrays its name, but thanks to the actors taking their jobs seriously it remained watchable.

Just as a side note here at the end, I can’t believe this is directed by the same individual who directed License to Wed (2007), The Beautician and the Beast (1997), and Dunston Checks In (1996). What the hell.

6 out of 10 – a great score for a romcom, but it truly was a well acted and interesting movie. I can’t say that for most in the genre.

Ghost Town (Dvd) - Both

I watched Ricky Gervais earlier this month on Inside the Actor’s Studio he stated that some of the best comedians did one thing, and they did it really well, he named Abbot and Costello as prime examples. They also had a lovable loser thing going on, because according to Gervais confidence aint funny. This, I’m assuming, was said to combat the critics who call Gervais a one trick pony. I tend to agree with the critics but I can see where Gervais is coming from as well.

In Ghost World Gervias remains true to his ideal stated to James Lipton and plays a largely anti-social extrovert whose near death experience leaves him with the unintended side effect of being able to speak with the dead. Since he is incredibly anti-social this irks him a great deal as now he has even more people crowding his world. In an attempt to get rid of them he finds love.

Yes, this is a romcom staring Ricky Gervais. This, in my mind, is as bad of a casting call as Ellen DeGeneres in Mr. Wrong (1996). I’m not sure who thought he would be a good lead in a romcom but I don’t have the big Hollywood pockets.

This film has a heart to it – that’s undisputable. Gervais is given the chance to help the dead move on from what is keeping them trapped in limbo. In these acts of good will and kindness the lovable loser that Gervais plays finds that the closed world he has been living in his whole life is somewhat meaningless and vapid. This is not a horribly surprising message, but Gervais plays the emotions well, and I genuinely felt good when he helped people.

The scant hour and maybe thirty minutes that this movie takes to tell its tale is a bit short, but I wouldn’t have wanted them to spend any more time on the ghosts, nor would I have wanted any more riffing from Gervais, so I guess win win.

4 out of 10 – Gervais plays Gervias once again, but this time with emotion.

Bride Wars (Theatre) - Jennie

Weddings are amazing. I mean that. Mine was the second happiest day of my life. Only to be surpassed the very next day as my new bride and I drove to our hotel in Maui. So how does Hollywood take the romance, joy, and love out of weddings?! How do Cinema weddings turn into what was displayed by this film?

This film was horrible. It highlighted a rare strain of female that wants so badly to have the perfect wedding that nothing, not even a cardboard cutout of a fiancé will stand in her way. Now, technically I don’t know any woman who has acted like that on their wedding day. So I feel that Hollywood is doing the fairer gender a disservice by producing this schlock. But it was obviously made for females. Not one male of note even graced the cast.

I’m not sure what anyone can get from this movie either. It depicts two wedding hungry girls who happen to be best friends. They both get engaged around the same time as well, one by forcing her boyfriend to ask her and the other by a nonchalant sigh of resignation. After finding that the wedding planner of their dreams booked them on the same day they fight to see who gets to keep the wedding date. No one wins and they both put on their weddings but not before attempting to sabotage the others. Along the way the husbands to be are pushed aside and barely even noticeable except for the occasional quip about how “crazy” girls are about weddings.

Eventually, one’s wedding falls apart on the day of the dual weddings and they make up. They both attend the wedding that is still on– while both of them are in wedding dresses – um, yeah. There is a little wrapper that shows that the two have been playing wedding together since they were children and the final voiceover reads something like this "Sometimes in life there really are bonds formed that can never be broken. Sometimes you really can find that one person who will stand by you no matter what; maybe you'll find it in a spouse and celebrate it with your dream wedding, but there is also the chance that the one person you can count on for a lifetime, the one person who knows you, sometimes better than you know yourself, is the same person who's been standing beside you all along."

Now I don’t know about you. I don’t know about your partner. I don’t know about anything other than my own marriage, and if that last sentence isn’t talking about your partner then you probably shouldn’t be getting married in my opinion. I wanted to start this review of with a remark about how Sex and the City has given woman the courage to say that a good group of friends is really all they need, if a life partner comes along so be it. And I think that is great, but that also means you shouldn’t then get married because it is some rite of passage. I guess what I’m trying to say is you can’t have your cake and eat it too. If you can’t give everything to your partner, then why get married, what is the point? Stay dating forever and leave it at that. If you really do want to be there for that person in good or bad times, sickness and health, zit or no zit (thank you Mrs. New!) – do it. But don’t marry someone for the ceremony. It is just rude.

I know I got off on a tangent, but this movie simply pissed me off. Marriages, between men, women, both – who cares – should be held in high regard. If you don’t – don’t get married. This movie simply mocks what it supposedly obsesses over.

1 out of 10 – simply a waste of time. And even somewhat offensive to weddings in general.

Four Christmases (Theatre) - Jennifer

When it comes to Romcoms Vince Vaughn is the king of male leads these days, but ask I you: has Vince Vaughn ever played anything other than a smooth talking, quick witted man’s man? So, I posit that he is actually not an actor, but a man who gets paid to be himself on screen. And in the female lead we have Reese Witherspoon who seems to be coming out of hiding. What was the last movie she was in? After checking IMDB I find that Rendition (2007) has been her last film. And before that we have to go to 2005’s Just Like Heaven, good lord.

But, back to the film at hand, we find Reese and Vince in a perfect relationship. No marriage to, I guess, ruin the fun of being eternally boyfriend and girlfriend, no children to mess up their tidy multimillion dollar pad, and no families to muddle with. This well tailored relationship hinges on honesty and a likeminded view of the future. This future includes blatant lies to get out of the dreaded family Christmas.

I want to stop here and ask: are all of you out there in the same boat? Do you hate your families so much that you would never want to see them? I have no clue what that would be like, I love the time I get to spend with my family during the holidays. That goes for my in-laws as well. I admit that sometimes it is an emotional gauntlet, but I wouldn’t want to miss it if I didn’t have to.

Reese and Vince get caught lying on TV about their whereabouts and are then relegated to visit their four parents. The scene in which they get caught is particularly interesting because for this to happen every one of their parents would have to be watching TV at the same moment, watching the same local news channel. Not only that, but, they must live in the same area meaning that Reese and Vince are complete bastards to their family the rest of the year as well. Who doesn’t visit their family at least once a year when they all live in the same city?

As their journey is played out we meet the unevenly written families that they were looking to avoid. Each character in the family is just a little crazy and then poignant. At points Kristen Chenoweth’s character who played a sister to Reese would be a childish berating little sister and then flip to a caring big sister vibe. I would blame the bumpy writing for this, not Chenoweth. This goes for Mary Steenburgen’s character as well.

The problem here was that the writers had to make the families look horrible in the beginning and then lighten up as they went on so that the viewers and the on screen couple of Vince and Reese could see what they were missing by being so standoffish. This poorly written solution included a father figure for Reese played by Jon Voight who seemed genuine and made Reese’s character seem like a complete asshole for avoiding him all these years.

Voight's character simply helps Reese when her well tailored relationship ship finds a single thread that is pulled and destroys the whole thing. And his thanks? Not being invited to the birth of his grandchild in the last scene of the film.

There were a few laughs to be had. And I have say, I loved seeing King of Kong’s Steve Wiebe in the background of a lot of shots playing Chenoweth’s husband. Go Wiebe! But ultimately this is a very forgettable script with horribly unforgettable characters.

3 out of 10: a watchable Romcom, but ultimately a waste of time.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (Theatre) - Both

Kevin Smith hasn’t been relevant in years. I’m not sure, even when he was relevant, if I even liked him then. Mallrats (1995) was o.k. as was Chasing Amy (1997). Jersey Girl (2004) wasn’t horrible – it wasn’t! Clerks (1994), though it is hailed as… well, something, was horrible in my opinion. The only quality film he has ever made was Dogma (1999), which I loved.

With this smashing intro you’d think I’d be down on Prono, but I’m not. I enjoyed it just fine. Jennie was unmentionably excited about this film as her new actress crush was staring in it. I’m not sure how Elizabeth Banks came to be held in such high regard by my wife, but she was positively giddy about her role in this.

Porno is a romcom at its core, a Harry Met Sally for the millennials. Zack and Miri have been best friends forever and their catalyst for change is that they find themselves in dire straights financially. After what seems like a minute they decide that the only lifeboat to their troubles is making a pornographic film that their high school friends can purchase. They set about casting it, making sets, and writing the script (who knew erotic films needed a script?). But while filming Zack and Miri fight about who gets to knob who, and how many different times this takes place. It appears they each do not want the other to biblically know anyone else. They mate on camera for their first scene and Zack feels a connection. Jealousy rears its head and the porno falls apart. Zack runs, a friend tells him that Miri felt the same way, he comes back and boom, ending.

It’s a romcom, what did you expect.

The acting is great. I have loved Seth Rogan from my virgin viewing of Freaks and Geeks and have wanted nothing but success for him ever since. Elizabeth Banks pulls off some good emotional scenes in a complicated role. I know comedies are never praised for their acting. I know comedy isn’t an actor’s skill according to Oscar, but I don’t think Angelina Jolie could have taken this role, and Elizabeth Banks is great with both the laughs and the tears. Also, Brandon Routh (superman, if you forgot) plays the straight man to Justin Long in a quick scene at a high school reunion and the couple makes some quality laughs with their portrayal as gay porn actors.

I also applaud the fact that this film didn’t reek of Smith. His directing skills were more subtle this time around. His dialog wasn’t as heavy handed. Smith may be lightening his touch, which I appreciate.

5 out of 10: Prono hit’s the romcom wall with quality acting and heavy petting.

Baby Mama (Dvd) - Both

Tina Fey churns out a horribly predictable comedy. It is hard to believe that someone who has the ability to make television incredibly watchable can put out a movie that is so uninspired. I have to admit I laughed a couple of times, and I didn’t hate it. But, my aversion for this conventional tired story line leads me to hate it more and more as I turn this thing over in my head.

The story sets up Tina Fey as a successful business woman who contracts a dangerous strain of baby fever. However, since Tina Fey’s reproductive organs are broken she decides to hire a surrogate. Amy Poehler was often relegated to play the dumb version of Tina Fey on SNL, and her role here is no different as she plays the hillbilly woman carrying Fey’s baby making ingredients. I find this relationship between the two stars growing old. Poehler has the chops to play many different characters both smart and dimwitted, but I feel the comedy team grasps what is comfortable and rely on this relationship too much.

The moment Tina Fey impregnates Poehler we are introduced to a male lead played by Greg Kinnear. If you are at all a fan of movies then you know what will happen with this revelation. The second I saw Kinnear on screen I knew Fey’s character, who previous to meeting Kinnear had a one in a million shot at getting pregnant, would be infected with child by Kinnear’s doing. True to form this was the case. The baby in Poehler is explained away and wacky romcom plot points are hit. Kinnear finds out about Fey’s baby mama, Kinnear runs and is mad, Fey finds out she is pregnant – tells Kinnear, happy endings all around!

Despite the tired formula, Steve Martin’s overacted C.E.O., and my politically incorrect views on single female surrogating/implantations I enjoyed this film more than I thought I would. I had a few laughs and is not that the goal of a comedy?

On a side note: For some reason, I can’t wrap my head around, I dislike the idea of single woman choosing to get pregnant on purpose just to fulfill a somewhat selfish need to be a mother. I’m not saying I think each family has to have at least two non-gender specific adults in it. Single mothers/fathers have a difficult and noble task. But for someone to choose that path is selfish, in my mind, and that is all. Additionally, think about this – a single man hiring a surrogate to create a baby. Is that not weird? Do you really think noble thoughts of this man? Any thoughts blog ‘o sphere?

3 out of 10 – Laughed a couple of times, but the lack of creativity stifled this romcom’s mojo.

13 going on 30 (TBS) - Jennie

This should be a quick one. This is Jennie’s favorite movie. I’m not entirely sure why, but I have a feeling that it something to do with Jennifer Garner being Jennie’s favorite actor. She loves her. And this film is pure Jennifer Garner gold.

I actually don’t mind this movie. It has a nice little plot device, and gull darnit if I don’t love me a time travel tale! A quick summary is that a young girl gets made fun of at her thirteenth birthday party. She wishes she was thirty. It happens! Hilarity ensues. It’s Big (1988) but with a girl.

The film has some pretty good elements in it including one of my man crushes Mark Ruffalo. Don’t ask me why – he falls in with Ron Livingston (Berger from Sex and the City) as a mundane nice guy that I would most likely be friends with. Who knows – but, for some odd reason I always find myself wanting these guys to succeed. The film is pretty well written for a Romcom. This includes scenes where Jennifer Garner has to see a man naked (Gross!) and when she interacts with a girl who is thirteen:
Becky: I like your dress.
Jenna: That's because I have these incredible boobs to fill it out!
Garner is fantastic in this role. She plays the character with wide-eyed innocence that few could pull off. I dare say she even got the best of Tom Hanks with his role in Big, as I believe it would be harder to pull off a thirteen year old girl than a thirteen year old boy.

There are only one or two complaints I had. The first one is the fact that “young” Matt (Ruffalo’s character) is played by a somewhat chubby brown haired kid who looks nothing like Ruffalo, while the “young” Jenna Rink (Garner’s character) looks to be every bit the part. Maybe they didn’t know who the leading man was going to be at the time, but couldn’t they have reshot? I also find it frustrating that they gave Ruffalo’s character a fiancé. He basically cheats on his fiancé and then ends up marrying her because – well, I guess, that is what you do when you get older. You marry a person who you don’t really love. Wait. What? Really? I guess, Romcoms gotta have some sort of spur to action. Don’t worry she goes back to when she was thirteen and gets him back from that hussy fiancé of his.

4 out of 10: probably the best score a Romcom can get. Light and fluffy – empty calories.

Fool's Gold (Dvd)

In our continued effort to see all the Blu-ray DVDs blockbuster has to offer I bring you Fool’s Gold. This mundane film wastes an hour and a half of your time by combining How to Lose a Guy in Ten Days (2003) and National Treasure (2004). McConaughey and Hudson just seem to be here to get a paycheck, and why not? If I couldn’t spend a month in the Bahamas flirting and swimming I would. There is some inexplicable violence. There are some inexplicable boobs. McConaughey inexplicably can’t keep his shirt on for more then ten minutes.
I’m not sure what draws studios to make films like these, but I have a feeling they turn a fair amount of profit in that they can’t take a lot of money to make, and I’m sure you get some kind of return on your investment.
I just looked this up and they made 100 million off this movie, and that aint countin’ the DVD sales/rentals, so there is your answer.
If I were to compare this to something like 30 Dresses (2008) I would say this was pretty good. But that is setting the measuring stick pretty low. Hudson and McConaughey’s character’s motivations seemed interesting and diverse enough, but the other two main character’s motivations, played by Donald Sutherland and some unknown tart, were thoroughly confusing. They paid for an expedition to search for gold, with only McConaughey and Hudson’s word for it. Why would an affluent man do this? I’m sure he didn’t make his money by throwing it at harebrained schemes. And the tart, at first, seemed motivated by the thought of the shirtless McConaughey, who, as always, was playing himself. But by the end of the film Hudson and McConaughey were together while her motivation evaporated into thin air. So, while motivations were confusing at points the playful banter between McConaughey and Hudson were what kept this film afloat. I’m sure we shall be seeing this combo again, soon enough.

3 out of 10 – Not the worst Romcom I’ve ever seen… though that aint sayin’ much.

Lars and the Real Girl (Dvd) - Jennie

This quaint romantic comedy is propelled by a role that Ryan Gosling disappears in and some very dark comedy. It revolves around a small town’s acceptance of Lars’ new girlfriend who just happens to be a life-sized sex doll.

Gosling plays Lars as a joyful yet reserved hermit who has lost the ability to be comforted by touch. After a coworker introduces him to Real Dolls, which is a company that creates plastic ultra realistic sex toys, Lars orders one and begins a delusion that she is real and has come from a foreign local to be his girlfriend. His sister-in-law in a desperate attempt to connect with the emotionally and physically distant Lars accepts this delusion and forces Lars brother, her husband, to go along with the ruse. Gosling’s Lars seems genuinely delusional and as the brother accepts that he will have to live with Lars’ mental issue he begins to ask the town to play along as well. This acts as the meat of the plot and it plays like an episode of the Gilmore Girls.

The small town seems to love the crazy Lars and go so far as to give his fake significant other a job, cut her hair, and party with her. In one particularly foolish scene the man-made female sits in front of a gaggle of children with a tape player on her lap as she “reads” them a story. An on looking adult smiles pleasantly as the children stare at the expressionless sex toy. I say this plays like an episode of the Gilmore Girls because the whole town seems in on it without any animosity. They joyfully dance with her at a birthday party, they keep a schedule of her activities, and the doctor treats her ailments. The deceptively cute Kelli Garner eventually pulls Lars back into the real world and provokes the climax in which the town throws a mock funeral for Lars’ now deceased toy.

I was pleasantly surprised that Nancy Oliver, the writer, didn’t fall for the usual trappings that accompany plots like this. There was never any ill will towards Lars by some angry-for-no-reason punk kid. The brother, despite not liking the game, plays along the whole time and never forces Lars to quit. I feel these things were obvious roads to travel down, but she didn’t take them. It did take away from the realism, but that is a casualty I was willing to suffer. I also have to add that Paul Schneider, who played the brother, did a fantastic job and should be called on more often then I am aware of.

6 out of 10 – a relatively harmless romantic comedy that timidly breaks the mold.

27 Dresses (Theatre) - Jennie

I’m no longer into Romcoms. I feel in the early days of the genre there was substance to these movies. I could be wrong, but here we go. Think about films like When Harry Met Sally (1989) and Splash (1984). These movies were directed by the likes of Ron Howard and written by Nora Ephron. This wasn’t a throw away genre. True, young actors who were barely in their prime were staring in these projects, much like 27 Dresses’ Katherine Heigl. And yes, the plots were formulaic. Harry did literally run after Sally. But Hollywood recognized that these films were well made. Nora Ephron got nominated for an Oscar for writing When Harry Met Sally, even though there was a stale chase scene at the end of the movie.
These days this genre is as much, if not more, of a subgenre as Sci-Fi, which brings me back to the name, Romcom. Much like the Sci-Fi genre these movies are slowly becoming written for a very small subgroup of moviegoers. Women made up 75% of the population that went to see this movie. 75% (I have stats if you wish)! And let me tell you, it was made for them. The male characters were two-dimensional props stood up next to the female leads as eye candy for the female viewership. This mirrors nicely with the Sci-fi genre were the females seem to be eye candy for the largely male viewers (just watch any Sci-Fi channel original movie. I swear those ladies were plucked from the nearest porn set in the exact costumes they were in).
This movie made me cringe at multiple times. The movie opens with Jane Nichols (Katherine Heigl) attending two weddings at once where, we are to understand, she is the glue that holds the ceremony together. At the end of each wedding Jane is thanked in front of the whole crowd by the bride. I do not remember seeing the groom once in either ceremony. We are then introduced to Jane’s life where she is under appreciated and takes care of everyone, ahhhh. The venerable bridesmaid of Romcoms, Judy Greer, plays the same role she always plays as Jane’s best friend/coworker at Urban Everest where Jane is an assistant to George (Edward Burns). George is a wealthy philanthropic dogooder who is the object of Jane’s affection. He obviously hasn’t noticed this yet. This is about all we will ever know of George's character, though he is one of the leads. The second male lead, and the winner of Jane’s affections by the end of the movie is Kevin (James Marsden). He is the commitments writer for the New York Journal, but hates weddings and marriage in general. Kevin did have some pretty nice oneliners about how horribly capitalistic the wedding industry is but the writers quickly doused that fire before it could turn any of the audience members off of his character. They explain that he is cynical about weddings because, gasp, he had the perfect wedding before and his wife left him for his college roommate (when this was reveled I heard sighs from the theatre, literal sighs.) Kevin dates Jane, Jane almost falls for Kevin, Kevin betrays Jane, Jane returns to George, George realizes the truth about Jane, they kiss, nothing is felt, Jane realizes Kevin is right for her, perfect wedding, end!
I can't portray the kind of loathing that I have for poorly made movies like these. Why waste the time, the money, the film? I know these movies aren’t made for me. But, it corrupts the delusional minds of the viewers into thinking that weddings are magical egotistical days where the man is an afterthought and the perfect dress can and should cost more than 10,000 dollars. Come to think of it, much like the sci-fi genre corrupts the delusional minds of its viewers into thinking that with the right construction of rings they can travel to different dimensions. Romcoms nerds are the new Sci-Fi nerds. But I fear that while the Sci-Fi nerds know that that is fiction, the Romcom nerds do not. Here’s to hoping.

4 out of 10: watchable, but contains more cliches than you can shake a stick at.

P.S. Jennie told me to say that women could enjoy it.

The Heartbreak Kid (Dvd) - Both

Not good, way too long, reminded me why I hate the Farrelly brothers, wasn't as bad as the worst Farrelly brothers movie, wasn't as good as the best. Ben Stiller just really needs to focus on something else. He hasn't been funny since... um... Has he ever been funny? Jennie and I were flipping the channels the other day and Zoolander came on, I don't see how anyone thought Ben Stiller was remotely good in that, and that is one of his big movies. Anyway, back to the review, there was graphic nudity that just didn't need to be there. I'm no prude, but come on, it was just there to ensure the R rating, am I right? Also, the movie was an hour too long. An hour. Can you make a good 2:30 comedy? Maybe, but the Farrelly brother certainly aren't up to the task in any way.

3 out of 10: Don't waste your time. If you do Jerry Stiller might reward you... a little.