R.I.P. Garry Marshall: Mother's Day Is An Unremarkable End To A Brilliant Career

The Good: Acting and directing are fine
The Bad: No memorable characters, Thematically monolithic, Lack of zest or cleverness
The Basics: In a subpar dramedy about mothers, characters are mashed together unmemorably in what became an unfortunate final film for director Garry Marshall.


During my month sabbatical, I missed writing tributes to all of the significant individuals who died, most notably, actor Anton Yelchin. As, possibly, the end of that Rule Of Three, Garry Marshall died a few days ago and I could not let his death pass without viewing some of his works. Garry Marshall effectively launched the screen careers of two of my favorite actors: Robin Williams and Anne Hathaway. Without Marshall, Williams would have remained one of my very favorite stand-up comics and while Anne Hathaway probably would have become a superstar in her own right, based upon her talent, but it helped when she was given the starring role in Marshall's adaptation The Princess Diaries (reviewed here!). In the last few years, the comedic writer in Garry Marshall had surrendered to masterful director . . . who was, sadly, rehashing the same film over and over again. Marshall's final film, Mother's Day is essentially Marshall's final reworking of his prior film Valentine's Day (reviewed here!).

Unfortunately, Mother's Day capped off Marshall's initially creative career with yet another attempt to create a box office success by throwing together as many a-list Hollywood actors in a character-packed film that ties together loosely-related characters in a narrative that is more about the surprise of how it comes together than about anything else. Mother's Day mashes together Jennifer Aniston, Jason Sudeikis, Julia Roberts, Kate Hudson, and the omnipresent Hector Elizondo, with a surprising number of new, younger, actors to flesh out a story of families in Atlanta coming together in the week before Mother's Day.

Opening with Sandy, who is surprised when her ex-husband is in her house with their child and his friends, she is told by Henry that he needs to talk to her. Sandy's inkling that he might want to reunite with her is dashed when he tells her he eloped, with a vastly younger woman. Jesse and her sister Gabi are living a lie from their estranged mother. Gabi is a lesbian who never came out to her parents and Jesse married Russell, whose family is from India, who her mother despised when they were still in contact. Widower Bradley has two daughters and he runs a gym, while Miranda prioritized career over having children.

Gabi and Jesse's lives become vastly more complicated when their redneck parents arrive as a surprise and they have to come clean with them. Sandy, freaking out about her ex-husband's new wife and the way Tina has inserted herself into her children's lives, freaks out in front of Bradley at the supermarket and Bradley - who is concerned about the boy his daughter is dating - notices her at his gym. When a girl approaches Miranda at a book signing and tells her she is her daughter, Miranda's life is turned upside down as well.

Mother's Day is one of those unfortunate films that lacks a spark. Works that Marshall wrote tended to have a sense of patter to them; humor and realism that were distinct. Mother's Day is a troublingly flat film. In fact, having just finished watching the film, there was not a single line I could recall or that I remember laughing at. This is especially troubling, as interspersed through some of the stories are sets from a comedy competition. When the stand-up comics in a film fail to illicit a laugh, that is not a good sign.

One of the fundamental problems with Mother's Day is that the movie is overstuffed. The entire plotline with Zack Zim, his bride-to-be and her sudden relationship with Miranda, is both cluttered and unnecessary. It is also the source of the film's most problematic lines. For sure, Mother's Day is a film that is exactly what it appears to be; a celebration of women who choose to be mothers. But, for a movie that is filled with a wide variety of characters, it lacks any complexity or subtlety. The racists encounter their grandchildren and can't hate them they way they have estranged their daughters, the mother who is protective of her children is a good influence on the single father and the young man idolizes his wife-to-be because, as a mother "she knows" . . . everything about their child. Mother's Day plays into the narcissism surrounding motherhood, as opposed to ever challenging it. The film's least-attached character, Miranda, is still a productive member of society - she prioritized career and is respectable, even though she gave up her daughter.

My point here is that mothers are idolized in Mother's Day in a way that is not universally-relatable, at least this day in age.

Mother's Day lacks memorable characters, but the performances are fine and Garry Marshall managed to get decent performances out of the young, unestablished members of the cast. But the movie is not engaging or held together in any compelling way. Instead, the performers do adequate jobs of representing the parts they were given, but those roles are not inherently interesting to watch or return to. That makes for a sad coda to a brilliant career for Garry Marshall.

For other works featuring Jennifer Aniston, please visit my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses 2
She's Funny That Way
Life Of Crime
We're The Millers
Wanderlust
Horrible Bosses
Just Go With It
The Bounty Hunter
The Switch
Love Happens
He's Just Not That Into You
30 Rock - Season 3
Friends With Money
Rumor Has It . . .
Friends
Office Space

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Peter Bogdanovich Makes His Own Woody Allen Movie With She's Funny That Way

The Good: Some amusing moments, Decent performances, Good cast
The Bad: Familiar and contrived plot, Derivative narrative voice, Unlikable characters
The Basics: She's Funny That Way might have been a fine movie . . . if it weren't for the thousand virtually identical films that preceded it!


When She's Funny That Way began, the interview narrative technique and the deadpan interactions between stars Imogen Poots and Illeana Douglas are instantly evocative of Woody Allen. Writers Louise Stratten and Peter Bogdanovich (who directed the film) are telling a story with a narrative voice and situation that seems like they are attempting to replicate a Woody Allen film. It is only in the film's final moments that it becomes painfully clear that the derivative nature of the lines and situation is intentional; the writers completely use an "everything's been done" defense within the narrative to excuse their own lack of originality for much of the film.

She's Funny That Way is not inherently bad; it has an impressive cast who works their parts well and there are a few good lines and moments of humor. But what the film lacks is a moment where it pops. I went into She's Funny That Way blind - no expectations or foreknowledge of the film - and I continued to wait for the film to make me care about any one of the characters. Instead, most of the enthusiasm I had for the film came from outside it - "It's so nice to see Cybill Shepherd!" "Oh my gosh, Jennifer Aniston is unrecognizable! Fantastic!" But more than all that, the longer it went on, the more I felt like I had already seen She's Funny That Way - my mind went back to State And Main (reviewed here!) an inordinate number of times.

After her rise to fame, Isabella Patterson gives an interview to Judy, a reporter who is adept at cutting through the crap her subjects throw at her. Isabella tries to put her past in the best light, while revealing her pre-acting career as a call girl going by the name Glow Stick. One night, director Arnold Albertson arrives in New York City (attempting to avoid contact with his wife and kid) from Los Angeles and hires Glow Stick for a night of companionship. Albertson offers Glow Stick $30,000 to start her acting career in earnest. Glow Stick takes the money and, after a trip to her therapist where she gets her new professional acting name, she goes to audition for a Broadway play.

The play is written by Joshua Fleet and is being directed by Arnold Albertson. Fleet, Delta Simmons, and the actor Seth Gilbert all love Isabella's performance during the audition, but Arnold does not want to cast her. After a disastrous night out at dinner - where Josh and Isabella, Jane (Izzy's therapist) and the Judge, the Judge's private detective, Arnold and Delta, and Seth and his date all end up at the same Italian restaurant - Delta convinces Arnold to give Isabella the job. The film quickly degenerates into repeated farcical situations based on the fact that everyone is related in one way or another (like the Judge, who shares the same therapist with Izzy, is romantically obsessed with Glow Stick, and has hired a private detective - who is, incidentally, Josh's father - to find Glow Stick). The collision of characters comes to a head at the table read for Josh and Arnold's play.

She's Funny That Way is not an unpleasant film to watch, but it does lack a spark that leads one to even be enthusiastic about reviewing it. There are moments, especially early on, that show a glimmer of originality and potential: Jane (Izzy's therapist) has a dog door in her office and when the German Shepherd runs in during her session, it felt fresh. But ideas like that and the cab driver who abruptly strands Seth and Delta when he tires of their bickering feel more like good ideas worked into a film that was otherwise devoid of them. In other words, they come up in the movie so abruptly that they feel like great ideas the writers had and this was the project they decided to stuff them into.

None of the characters in She's Funny That Way are particularly likable.

The farce plot allows the actors to play well-enough, though none are given big emotional moments. The surprise performance for me had to be that of Rhys Ifans as Seth Gilbert. Ifans was introduced to me (and most of the American moviegoing public) in The Amazing Spider-Man (reviewed here!). Seth Gilbert is utterly devoid of the intellect, posture and human compassion with which Rhys Ifans established his OsCorp scientist character in the summer blockbuster a few years back. Ifans has range and the more I see of him in roles where he plays a grimy schlub, the more impressed I am that Sony saw his potential for The Amazing Spider-Man!

The rest of the cast - led by Imogen Poots, Owen Wilson, and Illeana Douglas - is good, but their roles and performances are unremarkable. Cybill Shepherd and Richard Lewis are basically given cameos as loud, nagging parents without any real depth or character; Kathryn Hahn and Will Forte play their parts as Delta and Josh without any spark or distinction that would make them stand out (both have had stand-out, distinctive, roles before, so this is a definite change for both).

Ultimately, She's Funny That Way is a lackluster indie comedy that is bound to get buried beneath the tripe this Summer Blockbuster Season . . . but it's not clear that it didn't deserve to go so overlooked.

For other works with Austin Pendleton, please check out my reviews of:
Game Change
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
A Beautiful Mind
Homicide: The Movie

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Worst 10 Movies Of 2014!

| | | The Basics: 2014 was hardly a sterling year for films . . . but these ten are the movies that ought to be avoided at all costs!


It has been a long time since I have cared so little about what movies might win the Best Picture Oscar than this year. 2014 might have had some big blockbusters and two perfect films, but it had a giant load of mediocrity for the bulk of the year. While the Razzies tend to pick out the most obvious commercial failures, this year’s list of dud films would not be complete without the ten movies below.

It is important to note that while I’ve seen a great number of movies from 2014, I tended to avoid horror movies (on principle) – I’m certain if I had bothered with the latest movies from the overdone franchises of horror there might be some alterations to the list. But, for cinephiles and those who value their time, these are the 10 films too annoying, painful, boring or poorly made to bother watching from 2014:

10. Behaving Badly (reviewed here!) – The sex comedy Behaving Badly was so poorly received that even Selena Gomez appearing in it couldn’t scare up interest in the film at the box office. Behaving Badly is what happens when humor from audacious animated shows like Family Guy and South Park becomes the norm; by the time live action goes as surprising and raunchy, it’s passé. Behaving Badly might have been a cult film fifteen years ago, but in 2014, it’s utterly forgettable,

9. Listen Up Philip (reviewed here!) – The Academy and art house movie viewers usually love films about miserable people and writers at a point of crisis. Sadly, Listen Up Philip is just a collection of the worst stereotypes of writers and smart people. I never thought I’d see a year when Jonathan Pryce was in one of the worst movies of the year, but there it is . . .,

8. Expelled (reviewed here!) – While the major studios were duking it out during Oscar Pandering Season, one chose to dump one of its worst creations during the same time. Alas, hoping all the attention the big dogs would get vying for serious box office dollars might allow a concentrated fan effort to make an upset was not a marketing technique that worked. Instead, this droll comedy represents one of the year’s biggest conceptual failures: the entire premise is a slacker gets expelled from school and then has to apply himself to get back into school. The Herculean efforts made by the protagonist to get expelled make his ridiculous efforts to avoid boarding school all the more unrealistic, especially when he sees that the place he is threatened with ending up is incredibly easy to escape from! With no significant performers, performances, or ideas, Expelled is gut-wrenching to watch,

7. Horrible Bosses 2 (reviewed here!) – At the other end of the spectrum from Expelled is Horrible Bosses 2. Packed with talent, this limp sequel parades out as many of the stars from Horrible Bosses as it can to remind viewers what they liked about the original before degenerating into a disappointing and decidedly un-funny hostage caper movie that adds nothing worthwhile to the franchise. Seldom have so many truly funny and smart individuals been part of something that falls so short of humor and was so very dumb,

6. Authors Anonymous (reviewed here!) – I’m not sure if I should admire Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting for taking her time off as one of the highest paid actresses on television to appear in an indie film or lament that when she made the effort, she was put into essentially the same role. Either way, Authors Anonymous might be the best proof that when you’re at the top of the industry, it’s time to experiment and spread your wings (when there’s no risk to your finances or career for trying). Unfortunately, Authors Anonymous is neither ambitious, nor smart; it is not funny, nor does it allow any of the performers in it to truly showcase their talents – it is more a string of jokes that fail to land and missed opportunities than a film painfully bad to watch,

5. Vampire Academy (reviewed here!) – My only guess is that Vampire Academy was in production before Beautiful Creatures (reviewed here!) proved that not all supernatural teen lit translated into box office gold. Vampire Academy was so unmemorable that when I began assembling this list, I found I could not remember what was so bad about it. So, I picked up a copy, popped it in the Blu-Ray player and by the time the characters started talking to one another, I remembered! The dialogue is horrible, the acting is atrocious, the story is so familiar it has become an archetype - complete with the requisite and obvious reversals.  The only reason to pay to see this film would be if a Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of it was produced,

4. Bad Neighbors (reviewed here!) – I know I am in the minority of the world’s population on this one, but I did not find Neighbors funny. Dumb frat guys behaving badly, tormenting a working family . . . this is a horror movie disguised as a comedy and while Rose Byrne might have had a good year at the box office, it’s hard to imagine she or most of the rest of the cast is proud of this “comedy,”

3. Happy Christmas (reviewed here!) – Forgettable and neither complicated, nor entertaining, Happy Christmas was the last straw for me with actress Anna Kendrick. Kendrick either has one way to perform or she does not have the wherewithal to stand up to directors to challenge her to do more than appear on screen and keep her mouth partially open. Seriously; I know Anna Kendrick has a nice smile, but at some point, viewers need something more from her than reaction shots where she looks surprised, with her mouth slightly agape. Yet Happy Christmas seems to hinge on that one note of performance. As little as I ever root for the career death of anyone, as one who loathes how Lena Dunham has become the voice of fauxmanism (that’s "faux-feminism" or "a dumbing down of the fight for equality and civil rights," for which Dunham has become the poster woman), when Girls comes to its inevitable end, one hopes anyone who thinks of hiring Lena Dunham again might just check this film out and be assured that investing in her future is not worth it,

2. The Wait (reviewed here!) – Jena Malone did not have a good year in 2014. Her character in Mockingjay – Part 1 (reviewed here!) was virtually absent until the last few moments (and allowed her to show off none of her talent!) and Inherent Vice (reviewed here!), was delayed into 2015 in most markets, which meant that the most time she had on the big screen was in this lemon. The Wait is, as its name suggests, a ponderous film in which very little happens. At least Malone’s career will not suffer much from the film’s release . . . it did not get a wide-enough release, so most people will never see it to know how bad it was,

. . . and . . .

. . .the worst movie of 2014 is . . .

1. Making The Rules (reviewed here!) – Robin Thicke acting vehicle. Need I say more? Given how few people witnessed this cinematic atrocity, I probably should. Frances Conroy appears in her worst supporting role since supporting in Catwoman, Jaime Pressly plays Abby a lonely housewife obsessed with former boyfriend played by Robin Thicke and what is supposed to be a steamy, sexy drama about temptation is just another stupid, escapist trashy romance novel that isn’t smart enough to acknowledge itself for what it is. At under 80 minutes, at least Making The Rules does not make us suffer watching its terribleness long, but when that is the best that can be said about a film, it is hardly a ringing endorsement!

For other lists, please check out my:
Worst Ten Episodes Of Star Trek: Enterprise
The Top Ten Episodes Of Frasier
The Top Ten Episodes Of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

To see how all movies I have reviewed have stacked up against each other check out my Film Review Index Page where the movies are organized from best to worst!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Remember That Movie You Liked? This Is Similar, But Worse: Horrible Bosses 2

The Good: It’s not boring, Competent acting, Moments of social message
The Bad: Not funny, Low on character development, Nothing extraordinary on the acting front, Ridiculous plot reversals
The Basics: One of the least-inspired sequels in years, Horrible Bosses 2 is watchable, but not worth it.


When it was announced that Horrible Bosses (reviewed here!) had a sequel in the works, I was admittedly skeptical. The film did a decent job of bringing closure to the characters for the situation they were in and did not feel, to me, like a movie that needed any sort of follow-up. But when the first preview trailer of Horrible Bosses 2 came out, I allowed myself to get my hopes up. Unfortunately, Horrible Bosses 2 is one of the prime examples of how bad a sequel can be, stuffing a pathetic series of scenes in as “plot” after an extended opening which is essentially a “best of” the source material.

Horrible Bosses 2 continues the story of Nick, Kurt and Dale from Horrible Bosses and Horrible Bosses 2 actually does a decent job of standing on its own. Unfortunately, it is nowhere near as funny as the original and given how much of the first forty minutes has the main characters revisiting supporting characters from the original before the plot truly gets going. The result is a movie that belabors referencing Horrible Bosses before it transforms into a crime caper that is not at all funny or worthwhile.

Having quit their jobs working for their oppressive bosses, Nick, Kurt, and Dale come up with a new product, the Shower Buddy, which applies shampoo, conditioner, etc. from a shower head. But when they are on Good Morning Los Angeles making a product debut, their website name virtually destroys their ability to get investors. They are shocked, then, when an investor calls for a meeting. The next day, the trio meets with Rex Hanson, who wants to buy the Shower Buddy, but manufacture them in China. Unwilling to do that, the three men “bet on themselves” until Rex’s father, Bert, comes in and places an order for tens of thousands of Shower Buddies. After meeting their commitment by building a business from the ground up, Nick, Kurt, and Dale visit Bert with the good news and he tells them that he is cancelling the order. With their entire futures at risk, the three men decide that to get the money to save their business they will kidnap Rex and hold him for ransom from Bert.

After securing the Nitrous Oxide needed to knock out Rex, Nick, Kurt, and Dale, screw up and Rex becomes aware of their plan to extort Bert. Rex decides to play along with the scheme, but he ups the ransom amount from half a million dollars to five million. Despite Rex’s assurances, Bert refuses to pay the ransom and he goes right to the police. With Detective Hatcher investigating Nick, Kurt, and Dale, the trio begins to doubt they can pull off the fake kidnapping. When Rex escalates the situation by killing Bert, it looks like the three men will go down for his crime!

Horrible Bosses 2 is notable in that it is tragically un-funny. For a film that follows up a movie that has humor that replays well, Horrible Bosses 2 treads toward the banal and serious than wacky and humorous. Christoph Waltz, whose prior serious work The Zero Theorem (reviewed here!), illustrated what incredible range he had, is straightlaced and dull as Bert. But Waltz credibly delivers much of the film’s social commentary. Bert wants the Shower Buddy for pennies on the dollar and he is eager to destroy Nick, Kurt and Dale’s business and lives; he is a perfect allegory of big business in the United States. While Rex is more overt with the explicit problems of American labor, Bert illustrates how wealth creates wealth and American ingenuity is not dead, it is merely being undervalued by big business.

But Horrible Bosses 2 isn’t setting out to be a hard-hitting satire of American business, it’s a ridiculous crime caper. Much of the humor and potential joy for viewers comes from physical gags at the outset of the film and references to the first movie. Kevin Spacey’s Harken and Jamie Foxx’s Motherfucker Jones pop up in scenes where the protagonists are kicked down more than deliver any laughs. By the time Jennifer Aniston’s dentist character makes her appearance, even her fun parody of over-the-top sexuality plays poorly. The result is a sequel where the humor falls flat.

Chris Pine’s Rex is characterized as smug and brutal, which plays off of Jason Bateman’s Kurt’s realistic intelligence as particularly cruel. Bateman and Pine actually have the chops to make a pair of dramatic foils for a serious crime movie or a business scheme film. Unfortunately, Kurt’s seriousness and Rex’s ambition prevent the humor from having enough space to breathe. Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis deliver lines and physical gags that objectively could work, but their timing and the situation they are in do not work.

The result is a comedy sequel that falls flat and is not worth watching, despite moments of performance that hint at the talents of the performers involved.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Seventh Son
Song One
Match
Vice
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
Comet
10,000 Days
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1
Birdman

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Enjoyable And Neglected, Life Of Crime Is Still Worth Watching!

The Good: Funny, Good character mix
The Bad: Very plot-centered
The Basics: Life Of Crime is a fun, albeit basic, crime comedy dressed up with a good cast and an interesting mix of weird characters.


With the recent death of Robin Williams, I find myself thinking more and more about how complex and ridiculous the film industry is. With Williams, it came in the form of Terry Gilliam being unable to get American investors to pony up ten million dollars for a film with Williams and Johnny Depp. For sure, monied people know more about money than I do, but the idea that a movie with Robin Williams and Johnny Depp with a budget of $44 million or less would not be able to (at least) make back the investment seems pretty ridiculous to me. We’ll never know, now. This tops off my review of the new indie film Life Of Crime because Jennifer Aniston is in a new film that is getting far less press than The Skeleton Twins or the recent wave of pseudo-Christian (evangelical) films like God Is Not Dead.

To be fair, Life Of Crime is not a flawless movie by any means. Writer/director Daniel Schechter may well be the last person in the world making new adaptations of Elmore Leonard books (wasn’t that a mid-/late-‘90’s thing?!) and all 1970’s period crime pieces are likely to get stuck in the shadow of American Hustle (reviewed here!) for a while, but Life Of Crime is a solid movie that is well-made . . . it deserved a lot more attention than it is getting. For sure, cinema is a crowded marketplace, but that a film where Jennifer Aniston is leading a cast that includes people like Tim Robbins, Mos Def, Will Forte and John Hawkes, is produced and released and cinephiles have no idea it exists is troubling.

Opening in Detroit, 1978, Ordell and Louis team up definitively when a hood takes Louis for $27. Ordell runs the man over for him and the two commit to Ordell’s plan to get embezzled money from the ultra-rich Frank Dawson. Ordell’s plan is to kidnap Frank’s wife, Mickey, and ransom her for a million dollars, which they will put into an account in the Bahamas. Frank is neglectful of his wife and actually seems to actively dislike her (doing things like driving her home drunk, hitting their other car and leaving Mickey unable to open her door to get out of the car and pinned down by a giant trophy!), which makes his co-worker, Marshall, believe he has a chance with Mickey. When Ordell and Louis go to abduct Mickey things do not go as planned – Mickey drops a jar of marmalade and, because she is barefoot, cuts her foot fairly badly and Marshall enters the house, ready to make his move on Mickey!

After the abduction, Louis and Ordell take Mickey to the house of a Nazi Ordell knows, Richard Monk. Marshall wakes up and makes it look like he was in a car accident (to explain the head injury Ordell gave him to knock him out) and one of Ordell’s tails on Frank informs him that Frank is in the Bahamas with the same woman he was seen with on another occasion. Ordell realizes that Frank may have more than a simple mistress and Frank tells Melanie that he has filed for divorce from Mickey. While Mickey deals with her imprisonment, Louis and Ordell realize that Frank has so little interest in his wife that they will never get a ransom from him! As the two try to get Frank to pay the ransom, the confluence of weird characters complicate what was supposed to be easy money for the pair.

Life Of Crime is easily-recognizable to fans of pop culture as an adaptation of an Elmore Leonard novel by its collection of quirky characters. Richard is a Nazi who is a peeping tom, who is entirely comfortable doing business with a black man; Ordell is more comfortable with working with Richard than Louis is! Melanie seems straightforward, but has a subtle psychopathic vein in her as she encourages Frank to let the kidnappers kill Mickey (he’s divorcing her anyway . . .). Marshall is more dogged in trying to find what happened to Melanie than the police are! A collection of eclectic characters from all different ways of life is very much a common conceit in Elmore Leonard’s pulp works.

And the film works, even though it is far more average than it is extraordinary. Life Of Crime is funny and entertaining, though it lacks a spark to make it rewatchable. The caper and characters are fun, but despite how many quirky characters there are, the story is ultimately more straightforward than a truly character-centered film. The abduction has very obvious complications presented almost immediately – the wounded foot, the suitor in the house, the divorce papers – so as the film unfolds, it becomes more an exercise in waiting to see how they will influence one another. Life Of Crime plays out well, but it is hardly surprising or audacious.

On the performance front, Life Of Crime is made up of an impressive cast, who adequately embody the characters they portray. Jennifer Aniston plays Mickey without any originality or distinction; the role is straightforward to an extent that it is almost surprising Schechter managed to get her for the role. Mickey is not as memorable as Aniston’s character from Horrible Bosses (reviewed here!), for example. Tim Robbins, Isla Fisher, and Will Forte all give performances that are well-within their previously-established ranges. Even Mos Def, who is wonderfully charismatic as Ordell, gives a performance that seems to be more the result of good casting than anything he is stretching for in the role.

John Hawkes does manage to give a performance in Life Of Crime that allows him to shine. For perhaps the first time in anything I have seen him in, Hawkes does not seem like he is trying to give the performance Sean Penn would have given if he got the same part. Hawkes gives a decent portrayal of an emotionally-confused down-and-out not-quite criminal and he makes Louis pop well-enough to make Life Of Crime watchable.

Life Of Crime is solid, watchable and standard; while none of those are adjectives that might make a blockbuster, it is hard to believe that if the film had had any real promotion, it would have been bigger than it is likely to be.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
10,000 Days
Interstellar
Hit By Lightning
Horns
John Wick
Listen Up Philip
The Best Of Me
The Judge
Dracula Untold
The Equalizer
The Maze Runner
This Is Where I Leave You
The Giver
The Expendables 3
Guardians Of The Galaxy
The Zero Theorem

5.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Summer Finishes Comedy Strong With We’re The Millers!

The Good: Funny, Generally decent acting
The Bad: Very predictable plot and character development
The Basics: This year’s summer runaway comedy film, We’re The Millers actually entertains and hits the right notes to be the year’s most enduring comedy.


Every summer since The Hangover (reviewed here!), the major studios have tried like hell to create a summer comedy that would have the staying power at the box office to last through August and into September in order to get the college crowd’s money, as well as captivating adults and becoming the must-watch movie for high school students. This year, New Line actually nails it with We’re The Millers, a comedy that has managed to maintain a place in the Top 5 of the box office for over a month and a half . . . and with good reason.

We’re The Millers is hampered most by the fact that it is painfully predictable in its plot and character development. Within the first fifteen minutes almost anyone who has ever seen a comedy film will be able to call pretty much the entire film. “Painfully predictable” undersells how obvious We’re The Millers is for the movie. The humor in We’re The Millers lands because verbally, the film is hilarious and the performers in it sell the lines they are given in an uncommonly smart way. In fact, it is surprising how funny We’re The Millers is, despite the plot being utterly blasé.

David Clark is a very active drug dealer who makes the mistake one evening of helping his neighbor’s son, Kenny, come to the aid of the homeless Casey, who is being mugged by guys who want her iPhone. David is robbed by the muggers, who steal his drug money and leave him in a precarious position for his distributor, Brad Gurdlinger. Brad tells David he will forgive the debt and even pay him $100,000 if David will go to Mexico to his weed source and smuggle back “a smidge and a half” of weed. Recognizing that he looks like the drug dealer that he is, David gets a haircut and hires Kenny, Casey, and his stripper neighbor, Rose, to pretend to be his family. They rent an RV and go to Mexico. There, they meet Pablo Chacon and get two tons of his weed before heading out.

Surviving a run-in with Mexican law enforcement, the faux-family (who go by the surname “Miller”) makes it to the U.S. border. There, they are accosted by another family – the Fitzgeralds – in their RV. The Fitzgeralds are boisterous, archetypal Americans, who express a lot of interest in the Millers and while the drug smugglers are eager to get away from the Fitzgeralds, when their RV breaks down they are forced to rely upon the other family. In the process of running from the Fitzgeralds and Pablo Chacon (and his one-eyed thug), the Millers bond, have awkward sexual blunders, and try to deal with Brad’s treacherous nature. In the journey, Dave and Rose realize they might have more in common than they thought and the Millers actually become a family.

We’re The Millers has a comedic dream cast and I give a lot of credit to director Rawson Marshall Thurber. Thurber is ballsy enough to put both Jason Sudeikis and Ed Helms – who fill the exact same niche and are almost the same height even! – in the same film as David and Brad, respectively. The scenes they are in together illustrate well why they are considered two of the funniest people working in the U.S. today. Nick Offerman plays off Sudeikis with hilarious results and Offerman and Kathryn Hahn have great on-screen awkward chemistry to play a plausible couple that has been together for a long time.

Thurber also deserves real credit for getting Emma Roberts out of her on-screen comfort zone. Roberts, who is one of my favorite younger talents, is anything but simple and charming in the role of Casey. In fact, this is a film that does not trade on any of the innate charm she presents in virtually every other film role she has had. What is unsurprising is how Jennifer Aniston plays a stripper who does not take it all off. Like virtually every part Aniston has played, Rose is a character with an extensive backstory and in the revelation of her past struggles, Aniston is called upon to emote largely through softening her more stern facial expressions. Aniston’s performance is largely familiar, but to her credit, she is daring when the movie calls for it and fans are likely to be excited by how far she goes to sell the character of Rose.

The whole reason to watch We’re The Millers, though, is not for the cast – though it is good – and it is not for the characters or the plot, but it is a must-watch for the lines. Not since Monty Python And The Holy Grail (reviewed here!), though my wife would say Step Brothers (reviewed here!), has there been a comedy that is as quotable with as many superbly absurd one-liners as We’re The Millers. The Hangover may have been the runaway summer comedy a few years ago, but We’re The Millers raises the bar now.

For other films with Ed Helms, check out my reviews of:
Arrested Development - Season Four
The Hangover, Part III
The Lorax
The Hangover Part II
Cedar Rapids
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
Monsters Vs. Aliens
Confessions Of A Shopaholic

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Watching Miserable People Who Are Friends With Money

The Good: Decent acting, Realistic character development
The Bad: Lack of plot, Mood
The Basics: In exploring the underclass, writer/director Nicole Holofcener creates a depressing film that is worth a viewing, but difficult to watch a second time.


I'm always complaining around here about movies with people who claim to be ordinary and yet they never seem to have any problems with money. You know, how everyone in the movies and television seem to have great jobs or no problems making ends meet or how they all just look Hollywood beautiful. So, it seemed like a natural fit that I would welcome a movie like Friends With Money, which is pretty much like it sounds; one poor person surrounded by people who have money.

You ask a question, you get an answer. The reason there aren't a ton of movies about people who don't have a lot of money is portrayed in Friends With Money in the simplest possible terms; poor people are miserable. But that's all right, in writer/director Nicole Holofcener's worldview; rich people are miserable, too. Almost everyone in Friends With Money is suffering in one way or another, though admittedly the pair who seems to suffer the least are the richest of the group.

Olivia is a former teacher who now works as a maid cleaning other people's houses. Her best friends in the world are a writer (Christine), a fashion designer (Jane) and Franny, wife of a businessman who is apparently quite successful. Jane is married to Aaron, who is also successful though everyone pretty much assumes he is gay and that is the cause of Jane's misery. Christine's misery is obvious; she is married to a jerk. And Franny, well, she's pretty happy. She also has a lot of money and she and her husband Matt seem to get along throughout the entire movie. Olivia is poor and discontent and while the others explore the discontent of having a lot of money, Olivia struggles to find meaning in the group while trying to find a relationship.

One of the things I liked quite a bit about Friends With Money is that Olivia will do pretty much anything for money. That's not a compliment, but it makes the movie very real. Olivia is so miserable and desperate for money that she degrades herself constantly and that seemed exceptionally realistic to me. So when one of her clients haggles her down from $65 for her services to $50, she agrees, because something is better than nothing in her worldview. Sadly, this is taken to the extreme, so as she explores a relationship with Mike, he takes advantage of her kindness, what little money she has and basically uses her sexually before she gets up enough dignity to actually leave him.

It's a sad commentary, but it reads as very real and ultimately, it is that quality to the movie that makes me recommend it.

The characters are otherwise varied in their likability. Franny is fairly blase outside her philanthropy (the movie is basically building up to a $1,000 a plate fundraiser for ALS that she purchased a table at) and she seems somewhat more a "type" than the others. Christine's relationship with her husband David is perhaps the most troubling; he seems painted almost unrelentingly as a jerk, which begs the question, how did this get by her for years?! They professionally collaborate, but it seems like even that does not go well for them for even a moment. Yet, David seems quite set in his ways, as if he has always acted the way he does. Christine is either oblivious or stupid in this instance and it's difficult, given the way she is portrayed, that she truly is either.

Jane, I understood. Jane is suffering an ennui (which I do not share) that seems to come from being wealthy and having the time and ability to reflect on the morality of the situations her life throws at her. As a result, she becomes deeply depressed over people cutting her off in parking lots and lines and she stops washing her hair because she knows she'll just have to do it again tomorrow. Her clothes are ridiculously overpriced and she knows it and she seems to see it as her duty to sheer the even wealthier of that little sliver of money. Aaron, her husband, is likable and seems to genuinely care for her and the movie plays with the whole "is he or isn't he" idea quite effectively only because so many of the characters make an issue out of it. His ability to reach out to Jane enriches both of them and the film.

Part of the strength of Friends With Money is definitely in the casting and acting. Greg Germann stretches out into a dramatic role unlike anything I've seen him play as Matt (Franny's husband). Bob Stephenson plays Marty with instant likability that gives him a presence on screen one would think would disappear next to the limelight of Jennifer Aniston, but he holds his own. And Scott Caan, whose character is possibly the most unlikable in the movie (though Jason Isaacs as David comes close) does an excellent job making the viewer hate him.

The two shining stars are Frances McDormand as Jane and Jennifer Aniston as Olivia (how Catherine Keener ended up at the top of the credits for her role of Christine, I have yet to figure out). McDormand gives a great performance, living beyond what I had heard of her performances in Fargo and Almost Famous (in both of those movies, she was touted by the press as a great actress, HERE I see it completely!). She portrays depression in a way that is almost physically painful to watch, encouraging the viewer to feel a gut reaction of empathy. Her ability to connote a great deal with facial expression, as well as barbing some of the movie's most simple lines with implication, is brilliant.

And then there's Jennifer Aniston. It's difficult to watch someone who is a-list portray someone who is constantly degrading herself and Aniston (and this is intended as a compliment) does it wonderfully in Friends With Money. There is not a moment of the movie where Aniston is JENNIFER ANISTON, A-Lister! She's Olivia from her first frame to the last, awkward, pained, insecure. This is a performance that stretches her ability as an actress and she lives up to the challenge completely. And no one is more surprised about that than I.

Ultimately, though, Friends With Money is a depressing movie. It's thought provoking. It illustrates what capitalism can do to people who want basic respect and dignity and find users and jerks. Olivia's reasoning for leaving teaching is brilliant and one of the film's strengths is definitely that we never see flashbacks to that time in her life.

Poor people want the same things wealthy people have: to be comfortable and to try to find happiness. All Friends With Money reveals is that people with money can find more expensive ways to make themselves miserable or they can choose to overcome their misery and be happy in a way the poor among us cannot.

For other works with Frances McDormand, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Aeon Flux
City By The Sea
Almost Famous
Wonder Boys
Miller’s Crossing

6.5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Is Wanderlust More Than Hall Pass 2012? Eh . . . Maybe . . . ?

The Good: Moments of humor, Decent acting, Good DVD Bonus features
The Bad: Exceptionally predictable plot and character arcs, Some of the “fish out of water” humor wears devastatingly thin.
The Basics: Wanderlust is funny, but lacks any real enduring qualities to make it considered a comedy classic.


My wife and I have very different tastes when it comes to comedies. Even so, when she enthusiastically recommends a movie to me, I usually do what I can to get it in to watch it as soon as possible. In the case of Wanderlust, I was unsurprised when she saw it and recommended it to me; it was a film that she had been wanting to see when it was in the theaters, but we just never got around to it. So, the moment it dropped on DVD, she saw it and told me in emphatic terms that I had to see it. Having done that, my verdict is that Wanderlust is fun, but not the classic she made it sound like it would be.

In fact, the more I considered the plot, structure and themes in Wanderlust, the more surprised I am that she enjoyed it so much. Wanderlust bears a number of striking similarities to Hall Pass (reviewed here!) and neither of us was as fond of that film as we had anticipated we would be. More than that, aspects of Wanderlust that are fun often fall flat because director David Wain and his co-writer, Ken Marino, play the jokes that are based on deeply uncomfortable humor out far too long. That said, Wanderlust is not bad and it is a far smarter “fish out of water” comedy than, for an example in recent memory, Did You Hear About The Morgans? (reviewed here!).

Linda Gergenblatt and her husband George buy a studio apartment in New York City and days later discover that their employment situations have taken a pretty devastating turn for the worse. When Linda fails to sell her edgy show to HBO and George loses his job when the company gets shut down by the federal government, the two rapidly discover they are in a hopeless financial situation. Taking George’s obnoxious brother up on his offer to house them in Atlanta while they get their lives together, Linda and George head South. Desperate to get out of the car, though, the pair stops at a bed and breakfast, called Elysium. Elysium, as the nudist they run into almost immediately foreshadows, is a commune-style community that sells fruit at a stand on the side of the road and spends the rest of their time engaged in art, drugs and free love back down the road.

At Elysium, George and Linda discover a freedom they are unaccustomed to and after a night of staying there, they continue on to Atlanta. Once at Rick’s house, though, they discover his attitude unbearable and the job he offers George unworthy. So, George and Linda return to Elysium for a trial two weeks wherein they will decide if they truly want to live the rest of their life in a commune. Despite the commune’s de facto leader, Seth, making almost immediate overtures to Linda, George resists the temptations embodied by Eva, despite free love being part of the code of conduct at Elysium. As the novelty of Elysium begins to wear off for George, Linda begins to embrace life there and the two find themselves increasingly at odds.

Wanderlust has quite a bit going for it in the way it dispenses its humor. The movie seems to try less to be a fish out of water style comedy – though there are those elements – and focus instead on a culture clash between reason and emotion. George most frequently represents reason, which might be why he quickly experiments with what Elysium has to offer before deciding (reasonably) that it is not a sustainable life strategy for him and, he suspects, Linda. This leads to some hilarious exchanges between George and residents of Elysium. When George’s car ends up in the middle of the pond at Elysium, he tries to get information out of Rodney, who was driving it. Rodney’s spaced-out explanation that includes far too many truncations to actually inform George is actually hilarious. Unfortunately, a similar exchange where George continues to get interrupted by an Elysium woman who thinks she is being supportive while he tries to tell Linda how he feels drags; the viewer gets the joke almost immediately and the longer it goes on, not only does it become uncomfortable (which it is supposed to, given that it is that type of humor), but it stops being funny altogether.

On the flip side is Linda. Linda represents emotions much more purely than George does and as a result, she is initially wary of Elysium (fear!). But, when she sheds that, she actually warms up to the whole community aspect and even explores outside her comfort zone, which leads to the main conflict between her and George. It also triggers another painful sequence wherein George tries to talk his way up to having sex with Eva and that is just a horribly awkward bit that works because it is so clear that George isn’t emotionally able to handle infidelity.

Throughout Wanderlust, there is a subplot involving a corporation that wants to take over Elysium’s land and build a casino on it. That plot is frequently serviced by the appearances of Carvin, played by Alan Alda. Alda is hilarious as the community elder who founded Elysium with his friends in 1971 and now goes off listing their names each and every time the subject comes up. He has hidden the deed to the property somewhere and forgotten about it, which makes it virtually impossible for him to substantiate his claim that he owns the property. That subplot becomes a mechanism by which Seth shows his true colors and that bit works solely for the amount of money for which he betrays the community.

Wanderlust admittedly has a decent cast and it is used remarkably well. Paul Rudd, who is hit or miss, is on in Wanderlust as George. Sure, it is not much of a stretch from his performance in I Love You, Man (reviewed here!), but while I was watching Wanderlust, nothing in his performance jumped out as similar to that one (though, with a critical eye for character similarities, the roles are very close). Jennifer Aniston gives a solid, but unremarkable, performance as Linda. Linda is very similar to several other roles Aniston has played since Friends ended and she seems to be put in a rut, er, niche by too many directors who get her on their projects.

The supporting cast of Wanderlust actually manages to steal the show more often than the main cast. In addition to Alan Alda’s infrequent appearances on screen, Wanderlust utilizes Lauren Ambrose amazingly well. She was not given much humor to play on Six Feet Under (reviewed here!), the work from which I still recognize her best. In Wanderlust, she plays the delightfully crazed Almond, who is very pregnant and plays the earnest deadpan jokes incredibly well. She steals every scene she is in. Unfortunately, Malin Ackerman is relegated to yet another generic “hot chick” role in Wanderlust. Her character Eva is not given much in the way of a personality and it is only the relentless string of terrible attempt lines that George spits out that make it plausible that Eva would reject his advance when the time comes. Ackerman is, unfortunately, given very little to do, save react and look good on screen. In a similar vein, while Kathryn Hahn’s Karen initially feels like a different role for her, the moment Karen jumps in following Eva’s discomfort, the role is pure Hahn. In other words, it’s exactly what one expects from one of her performances.

Wanderlust has a vibrant soundtrack dominated by a recurring drum-driven piece that punctuates the movements well. Director David Wain has a decent sense of comic timing that makes Wanderlust move along well for the bulk of the movie. Wain and his co-writer ought to use any one of the many internet mapping programs that exist to fact-check before their next endeavor. The lighting in the travel montage indicates that Linda and George are driving for days. The drive from New York City to Atlanta is 14 – 15 hours, not multiple days. As someone who traveled a lot, that sequence stood out at sloppy.

Now on DVD and Blu-Ray, Wanderlust is engorged with bonus features. The deleted scenes, ironically, do not include all of the bits that were featured in the trailers for the movie. In addition to featurettes, the DVD has deleted and alternate scenes. The disc is pretty well packed with goodies for the fans. My wife might be one of those fans, but I ultimately found Wanderlust to be a solidly average film in too many ways to enthusiastically recommend it.

For other works with Malin Ackerman, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Couples Retreat
The Proposal
Watchmen

5.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Graduating Into Something Mediocre: Rumor Has It . . .

The Good: A few lines near the very end
The Bad: Unextraordinary acting, Flat characters, Formulaic plot
The Basics: In a disappointing romantic comedy, Jennifer Aniston's character Sarah learns she may be the lovechild of the guy from The Graduate. Sigh.


When Harry Met Sally and Love Actually (reviewed here!) are two romantic comedies that are traditionally well-reviewed that I love. They are in my permanent collection, I watch them periodically, I enjoy them quite a bit. I mention them because lately I've seen a lot of romantic comedies or dramadies that border on romantic comedy that have been disappointing, vacuous or unsurprising and unfulfilling. I give every film, c.d. and book I encounter a fair, open-minded chance, but lately, I've been running into a lot of duds. The latest in that series is Rumor Has It . . .

Thirty years after the affair that inspired The Graduate, Sarah Huttinger is going through something of an existential crisis. While at her sister's wedding, while covering up her own engagement, Sarah learns that her grandmother, Katharine, is the woman who Mrs. Robinson was based upon and that the man who she seduced also seduced Sarah's mother. This causes Sarah to believe it is possible that Beau Burroughs might be her biological father, so she hunts him down.

Romantic comedies often hinge on chemistry. Chemistry is key to convincing an audience within ninety to 180 minutes that two people who are just coming together could be romantically involved. Hollywood creates for the audience and society the myth that relationships are not complex and can be condensed into an experience that is encapsulated within a ridiculously short period of time. Even given that common conceit, too many movies fail to engage the viewer simply based on lack of chemistry.

Rumor Has It . . . is plagued by a lack of chemistry all around. There is no palatable chemistry between Sarah and her fiancé Jeff. When we meet Beau, he is not terrible charismatic. Beau and Sarah have no discernible chemistry. And, though it was probably intended, Annie (Sarah's sister) and Scott have no chemistry either. It's pretty much impossible to sell a romantic comedy when none of the characters/actors have chemistry with one another.

I'm going to start the blame here with the actors. Mark Ruffalo plays Jeff and from his first appearance on-screen, my thought returned to the age-old problem of directors casting the Hollywood Beautiful d'jour actor of middling talent. Ruffalo fits this mold and it's unclear what his appeal is. This is the first movie I've seen Ruffalo in and he did not spark any desire to see him in any other roles. His delivery is bland, his affect is dull and he has no on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Aniston.

Conversely, Ruffalo is given the best line of the entire movie, though it comes far too late (almost at the very end) for the viewer to care and be impressed by his character for it. Moreover, there is nothing spectacular about Ruffalo's delivery, so the credit for the line has to go squarely to writer Ted Griffin.

Kevin Costner plays Beau and his performance calls to mind a gag from Family Guy. Chris, the dim son on the show, states, "I haven't been so confused since the ending of No Way Out!" and the shot immediately changes to him walking out of the movie wondering, "How does Kevin Costner keep getting work?" Yes, Rumor Has It . . . brings that question to mind as Costner is neither charismatic or even interesting as a character that pretty much demands being both. His performance feels surprisingly woody and Costner does not add anything to the role to sell the character.

Jennifer Aniston plays Sarah and it does not work for her. She proved to me her acting talents in Friends With Money, which might have been mood-terrible, but she was great. Aniston plays a character too much like her strong but occasionally befuddled Friends character Rachel. She exhibits no chemistry with either Costner or Ruffalo, which pretty much sinks the story.

Director Rob Reiner gets a lot of credit from me. He directed both When Harry Met Sally and the fabulous The American President. He is a man with some real talent and he has proven it time and time again. Rumor Has It . . . is not his best work. He doesn't bring out anything in the cast, does not make the story pop in a visually interesting way nor does he manage to sell us on any of the leads as being talented individuals.

Ultimately, Rumor Has It . . . just does not pop from the writing to the acting to the directing. It is not engaging and the events that are supposed to lead to a cathartic end fail to because the supposed catharsis is based on the concept that two of the characters are good together. Alas, we will hold out for better.

For other works with Mark Ruffalo, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Avengers
Date Night
Shutter Island
The Kids Are All Right
Where The Wild Things Are
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

3.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Surprisingly Zestless Romantic Comedy, Along Came Polly Simmers.

The Good: Some very funny moments, Interesting characters
The Bad: Acting is derivative, Characters end up as types, Very predictable
The Basics: While not terrible, Along Came Polly is an ultimately underwhelming romantic comedy that can safely be skipped.


Last night my wife got to pick the movie we watched. She was still a little sore at me for the way Memento did not actually end and she decided to use her choice of movie night to share with me one of the few romantic comedies she enjoys. That took the form of Along Came Polly. My wife likes both Ben Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, so Along Came Polly was a pretty natural movie to appear in her permanent collection. Before we watched it, she defined the movie for me as her favorite film she ever picked up in Wal-Mart’s $5.00 bin. And after watching it with her, I can pretty much see why.

Along Came Polly is shockingly average and for one who is not a fan of romantic comedies, as my wife is (not, I am), I was surprised how painfully formulaic the movie was. Without even overanalyzing how predictable the initial events of the film were – i.e. the fact that Debra Messing who starts the film paired with Ben Stiller is not billed very high, making it obvious to anyone who has seen pretty much any movie that her character will make a quick exit - Along Came Polly is structured like a writing class project for the archetypal romantic comedy. All that shakes it up from being average is a few uncommonly humorous moments. Unfortunately, those moments are pretty equally balanced by the acting, which is in no way extraordinary, merely the performers playing within the bounds they have clearly established in other roles before this one.

Reuben Feffer is thrilled to marry his best friend, Lisa. On their honeymoon to St. Barts, however, Lisa has an affair with the scuba instructor, which Reuben walks in on. Returning to New York alone and looking toward a pretty bleak future moving into the house he bought for both of them, Reuben agrees to go out on a few dates, per his best friend’s recommendation. While at an art opening, they run into Polly Prince, a woman they knew in their childhood. Reuben decides to see who Polly has become since middle school and he asks her out.

Polly could not be more different than the insurance analyst. Reuben assesses risk for a living and he has trouble getting Polly to commit to eating a meal out more than a day in advance. When they go out for spicy food, Reuben ends up drenched in sweat and in an awkward bathroom situation. But, oddly, Polly remains strangely undeterred and they go dancing and have another dinner, which Reuben’s parents interrupt. As Reuben tries to assess the risk for a thrillseeking client, he and Polly get closer and the relationship seems to be heading in a direction that gives Reuben the potential to move on . . . until Lisa resurfaces!

Along Came Polly seems to be much more appreciated by the general populace based on the strength of the cast and it is hard to argue that Along Came Polly is not well-staffed. Led by Ben Stiller as Reuben, Along Came Polly balances Stiller with Jennifer Aniston (Polly) and features Debra Messing (Lisa), Alec Baldwin (Reuben’s boss, Stan), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Reuben’s best friend, Sandy), Hank Azaria (looking pretty cut, especially for a voice actor!), and several others in even more minor roles. Along Came Polly has a good cast and everyone who appears in the movie appears well-cast for the role that they are in.

In fact, that is one of the issues with Along Came Polly. The casting is entirely unimaginative for the roles. Ben Stiller, especially, suffers as Reuben because it is little more than a retread of the character he played in The Royal Tenenbaums. We get it, Stiller can do a balance of neurotic and deeply damaged. The problem with Stiller as Reuben in Along Came Polly is that he offers us nothing new (except a shot of his butt). Stiller did this role half a decade prior . . . what’s new?

As for the rest of the cast, it is fine, but similarly unremarkable. As the title role in Along Came Polly, Jennifer Aniston would seem to be a highlight, but her performance is surprisingly unmemorable. Aniston is upstaged in every scene she shares with her character’s blind ferret. Aniston is good at playing a free spirit, but for someone who is supposed to be living life in an exciting way, Polly is actually remarkably mundane. Sure, she salsa dances and eats spicy food, but those are really the only two risky behaviors we see her engage in, so she is not much of a contrast to Reuben. Aniston, for her part, does what she can with the role, but it’s not a spectacular role.

The supporting performances in Along Came Polly are equally average, with none of the other actors wowing viewers (though Bob Dishy’s part as Reuben’s father amused me). Moreover, Along Came Polly is almost painfully formulaic, which does not give viewers any real surprises that fit the film. As much as I wanted to like Along Came Polly, the structure of it was very basic, very direct and pretty much the literal rendering of a romantic comedy by the numbers, from the challenges to the relationship that arise to the sidekick best friend’s character arc.

What saves Along Came Polly from being considered completely mundane is the humor in the film. There are several funny lines in Along Came Polly, like the way Reuben seems fixated on the fact that Lisa and the scuba instructor kept their fins on while having sex. When Reuben’s father speaks, it is amusing and even Stiller’s dancing (which bears an uncomfortable resemblance to his physical comedy in Zoolander) is worthy of a chuckle. But not all of the humor works for Along Came Polly. When Reuben is playing basketball and his face essentially acts as a squeegee for a bare-chested man’s sweat, the gag – in addition to being absolutely gross – feels distractingly generic. It is a gag that could have been done in virtually any movie for the same effect; it does not actually reflect much on Reuben’s character to not want to swallow the man’s sweat.

In the end, Along Came Polly is a simple, standard romantic comedy that lacks the “wow” factor to be truly enduring and, as a result, ends up in the lower ranges of what I consider an “average” film.

For other works with Masi Oka, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Friends With Benefits
Fired Up!
Get Smart
Heroes

4.5/10

Check out how this movie stacks up against others I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized from best to worst film!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |