fever pitch, part deux
second, it does not work as a romantic comedy. this is true for at least two reasons. first, even a second rate preacher, such as myself, can tell you that you should not wait twenty five minutes to introduce the primary conflict that drives the story (this applies to other genre of literature and film as well). the failure to raise the conflict between fallon's rabid fandom (which is about as realistic as elton john's rabid heterosexuality, by the way) and his broad's yuppie sensibilities, sinks the film from the start. second, fallon and barrymore have less on-screen chemistry than prince charles and lady die. hell, they have less chemistry than me and airport girl! note to the farrely brothers, when viewers have a hard time believing that the main characters would engage in a one night stand, it's going to be a bit difficult to convince them that they would be involved in a long term relationship. for some reason the directors also thought it was a good idea to turn the gender roles on their head by having "the girls" in the movie spend time rock climbing and boxing, while the guys nanced around in an apartment, begging for tickets like strippers for singles, and the lead character faced rejection with pathetic tears instead of a twelve pack of sam adams. playing with gender stereotypes is one thing, but making it difficult for the women in the audience to identify with the female lead and making absolutely verboten for any hetero man in the audience to identify with the male lead, causes more problems than it solves.
the movie also fails on the third level insofar as it is a miserable adaptation of a nick hornby novel. nick writes wonderful novels about how terribly narcissistic, single men discover their humanity and open up their terribly narrow souls. as we have seen with high fidelity and about a boy this theme can be done by american filmakers, and done well. but to turn a nick hornby novel, with the exception of how to be good, into a chick flick is a cinematic sin of the first order.
in sum, i hated this film. in my humble, subtle opinion, ebert and roeper can take the two thumbs they extended in support of this film and stick them up their asses.
whew. i feel better. i should also admit that while i hated the film, i loved the evening. hanging out with kellie and leanne is was tonic for the soul.
dear reader, do sit on your hands until the next edition of jaded reviews, when i will provide my thoughts on john and stasi eldredge's captivating. just to whet your appetite, in the first three pages stasi has already described a conversion experience in which she realized that "i was no longer stasi. i was sacagawea, indian princess of the west, a valiant and strong woman." it was at that very moment that i realized this book is going to be good.
Dwight’s Top Ten Books of 2024
4 days ago
10 comments:
Now Jeff, while I do agree with almost everything you've said, I cannot deny it: while the guys nanced around in an apartment, begging for tickets like strippers for singles. This part was hilarious. I'm sorry, but it was.
I hope you are kidding regarding the new Eldredge drivel.
On a romantic comedy level it works like all romantic comedies work. We men should not be allowed to review them. We would not attend on our own. they are not made for us.
Sure they can give us Fenway park, but it is still a chick flick. Just like in Armageddon, they can give us Steve Buscemi and blow up Paris, but it is still a chick flick.
We have no understanding of the basic components of such a movie. They speak another language.
As a romantic comedy it did not suck any more than 98% of them. It ended the same way (at least it was not at an freakin airport!!!!!). By the way, what is this fixation with Drew Barrymore and baseball diamonds as the airport scene.
Exceptions to rule regarding RC, anything starring Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart (best yet, starring both- with Kate Hepburn- ahhh sweet Kate), the first 2 Nick Hornby adaptations (guy flicks in disquise), One Fine Day, Harry Met Sally (kinda) and a couple more that end realistically.
I can forgive any RC if it does not end with a climactic "Get Back Together in Public Setting."
rick, while i'll be the first to admit that i don't know a damn thing about romantic comedies, i do know that almost every plot hinges on the early introduction of conflict. i'm sure that there are some russian novels and dada-esque indy films that ignore this rule, but they are the exception.
and i'm not kidding about the eldredge book. i will be speaking with sacagawea herself sometime within the next two weeks.
I was completely into Waking the Dead, soaking it up, until 1/2 through when God and Eldredge had a "very special" Braveheart moment on a mountain... I then felt so jaded. Why does God use full sentence structure with Eldredge and he just sends me 'feelings'? Dagnabit! MY HEART IS GOOD!
and why does God teach every man through freakin' overrated Braveheart.
I swear if I see another Pastor, Youth Minister, teacher, etc. use that movie in an illustration or another ls %$*!!##! clip from that movie at a church, ministry conference, etc. I will go Braveheart on the ass of that teacher.
Oh, I swear (and I am a pacifist).
When I see Eldridge teach on Braveheart, I think how can a guy so wimpy get so much out of such a testo movie? He would not have lasted 5 minutes in that era.
he is the new Lucado!
sorry
maybe you could get sacagawea to do her indian mating call for you. that would be cool...
or ask her what she and william wallace do in the bush. that would be even cooler!
how much better would the movie have been if Adam Sandler had been cast in the lead? Some improvement, or is it so unsalvageable that nothing would help?
toss in adam sandler, give him a wise-cracking hetero buddy such as norm macdonald, raise the rating to "R" and you might have a salveagable movie.
Exactly! Adam Sandler and Norm McDonald as rabid vulgar Red Sox fans would be right on target.
Post a Comment