Review

WHAT TO EXPECT WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING

Released: 2012
Director: Kirk Jones
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Elizabeth Banks, Anna Kendrick and some dudes

Grade: B-

 

Let’s talk about expectations. A lots of things build up expectations around a film: an actor (when I go into an Adam Sandler movie I expect lowbrow humor), the source material (the Harry Potter films are probably going to be magical), a trailer (previews for Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby are as heavily stylized as the film), or a director (an Alfred Hitchcock movie is going to serve up a healthy dose of suspense). It’s human nature to form expectations about a film before you see it. In fact these expectations usually determine which films you chose to see. They can also dramatically impact your opinion of said film. Go in with high expectations, and you are more likely to be disappointed. Go in with low expectations, and it’s easier for a film to surprise you.

Before seeing the 2012 rom com What to Expect When You’re Expecting what might our expectations be? The film is crammed full of celebrities, many of whom have starred in other rom coms, and most of whom have a background in loud, brassy comedies. The film is based upon a nearly three-decades-old pregnancy guide, meaning it has no specific narratives or characters to draw on, but does have a general theme that clearly links everything together, namely pregnancy and the challenges surrounding it. The trailer? Well that pretty much matches with what we’ve pieced together so far. It seems particularly enamored with the idea of “The Dudes,” a group of dads who offer up a badass demeanor while changing diapers and pushing strollers. The director? Here’s where things get interesting. Kirk Jones’ other works include two well-received character pieces, Waking Ned Divine and Everybody’s Fine, and the delightfully whimsical family comedy Nanny McPhee. Not exactly the man you’d expect to direct a slapstick-y, celebrity filled rom com. And yet even with this curious directorial anomaly (more on that later), I went into the film with very low expectations. And that might have been its saving grace. 

 What to Expect When You’re Expecting follows five couples through the trails and tribulations of their first pregnancy. High-strung workaholic Jules (Cameron Diaz), a coach on a Biggest Loser type reality show, is shocked to discovered she’s pregnant with the child of another reality TV star Evan (Matthew Morrison, a dancer on a Dancing With the Stars stand-in). Perky baby-boutique owner Wendy (Elizabeth Banks) is overjoyed to find herself pregnant after trying for two years with hubby Gary (Ben Falcone). Gary’s father, racecar driving superstar Ramsey Cooper (Dennis Quaid) is also going to be a dad again, this time with his young, blonde wife Skyler (Brooklyn Decker). Food truck owner Rosie (Anna Kendrick) gets knocked up after a one-night stand with her food truck rival Marco (Chace Crawford). And photographer Holly (Jennifer Lopez) is ecstatic about adopting a baby from Ethopia with her slightly-reluctant husband Alex (Rodrigo Santoro). Did you get all that? 

What To Expect works hard to meet its “edgy” rom com cliché quota: someone calls a minivan a “vagina on wheels,” Cameron Diaz throws up on live TV, and Elizabeth Banks constantly pees herself. There’s product placement galore, the female cast are all highstrung in that rom-com-heroine way, and there are a lot of jokes about how crazy women are when they’re pregnant. For the first third of the film my notes were filled with scathing commentary (after a prolonged scene of a food truck battle I wrote “I’m someone who actually watched the Food Network’s The Great American Food Truck Race and even I don’t care about this”).

But once the film moves past its initial goofiness (and all those women got knocked up), things became a bit more grounded. It’s like director Kirk Jones put in as many broad comedic scenes as he needed to in order to please the marketing team, then filled in the rest of his movie with characters that actually resemble human beings. It helps that the film’s segmented structure allows each storyline to have a slightly different tone. While those tones range from broad to understated, each piece mostly maintains a consistent world (expect for the Banks story which makes a sharp turn into life-and-death drama for a brief moment).

Banks’ plot is by far the broadest followed closely by Diaz’s. Lopez gets a more thoughtful relationship piece, and Kendrick seems to be in a small indie drama that accidentally got inserted into this film. The “Dudes Group,” which I expected to be the film’s nadir, actually manages to balance its humor and pathos better than I expected. There seems to be some truth behind the insights that men and women have different parenting styles, although I wish the movie didn’t have to do so much women-bashing to make that point. Plus there’s just something adorable about a line of five grown men carrying four strollers down a flight of stairs in perfect unison.

I was surprised (and pleased) that the film attempts to give its supporting players a bit more nuance than your typical rom com stereotypes. Particularly Skyler (Dennis Quaids’ young bride) who at first appears to be just another bimbo trophy wife but actually turns out to be a family-driven, compassionate person. Rebel Wilson brings her trademark dry delivery as Banks' boutique assistant; she's equal parts slacker and confidante and Wilson acquits herself well (as she always does). Alex (JLo’s husband) is not an asshole roadblock to Holly’s happiness (I was expecting a Juno situation), he’s just a nice guy who’s scared shitless about being a parent (Santigo’s lackluster performance doesn’t really sell the nuance, but it’s there). Giving the supporting characters a bit of depth helps compensate for the broader plot mechanics around them, and I wish more rom coms fleshed out their worlds with characters who don’t feel like stepped out of a JC Penny catalog. (No Strings Attached is another example of a well-used ensemble.) 

While there is consistency to each of the five individual stories, they still feel ridiculously out of place when juxtaposed against one another. After I watch a woman lose her baby and break up with her boyfriend, I don’t want to laugh at a man driving a golf cart through a Margaritaville and into a pool. And once I see a pregnant woman collapse from overwork, I don’t really care if your wife calls your baby “Ahn-ree” and you prefer Henry. Juxtaposing the mundane and the monumental might make sense in a movie that deals with the creation of life, but it’s done so haphazardly there’s nothing to be gained. There are just too many plots (I would have cut Dennis Quaid altogether), and many of them are too broad to exist in anything resembling reality, something the rest of the film seems to want to do. I almost wish these had been five separate movies so I could skip the ones I wasn’t interested in, and delve deeper into the ones that genuinely intrigued me (the stories involving Kendrick and Lopez).

And yet expectations are everything. I went in to this movie expecting to hate it, and the fact that I genuinely enjoyed 2/5 of it and found moments to like in the rest was a lovely surprise. Is What To Expect When You’re Expecting great? No. Is it better than most of the mass produced, celebrity filled rom coms out there? Absolutely. While I can’t say for sure whether or not the film’s marketing strategy was designed to lower my expectations and thus make me like the movie more (alright I can pretty much say that wasn’t the intention), the technique went a long way towards making me enjoy a film I was ready to write-off. 

Reality factor: I’ve gone on long enough about how this film’s reliance on broad comedy is its downfall, and yet it’s all a matter of degrees. Elizabeth Banks excitedly waving five positive pregnancy tests and jumping into a pool to tell her lap-swimming husband made me laugh out loud. See, I’m not a total Scrooge! [2 out of 5] 

Eye-candy factor: As a long time Gossip Girl fan I have to give this film’s hottest guy award to Chace Crawford. Boy-oh-boy is that guy a wooden actor. Boy-oh-boy do I not care one bit. [4 out of 5] 

Aww factor: I’m not gonna lie, I actually cried when JLo finally got her adorable Ethiopian baby. [3 out of 5]

Review

Because I Said So

Released: 2007
Director: Michael Lehmann
Starring: Mandy Moore & Diane Keaton

Grade: C-
 

I have been procrastinating on this review for weeks; every time I open the page to start working my eyes glaze over and my mind goes numb. I could blame this on writer’s block or generally laziness, but I think at least some of the blame falls on the dreadfully dull Because I Said So. It’s not a secret gem like The Decoy Bride, it’s not so-bad-it’s-good like Kate & Leopold, and it’s not offensively bad like Something Borrowed. It just kind of…exists. The characters are broad, the humor is forced, and there’s nothing particularly compelling about the plot. Enough halfway decent scenes prevent the film from becoming a total disaster, which means it falls into the middling range of mass-produced rom coms that leave little-to-no impression. Clearly very little critical thought went into making this film and it’s awfully hard to discuss it critically. But, dear readers, making sense of the bland is my cross to bear so let’s dive in, shall we?

Really the best thing I can say about this movie is that it’s not Love, Wedding, Marriage, the truly god-awful Mandy Moore vehicle I reviewed a few weeks ago. While Love, Wedding, Marriage seemed to have no understanding of the basic art of filmmaking, Because I Said So makes some attempts at consistent characterization and logical plotting. Like some other films I’ve reviewed (Sleepless in Seattle springs to mind), this film looks not just at romantic relationships, but at familial ones as well.

Successful caterer Milly (Moore) and her mom Daphne (a shrill Diane Keaton) have a weird kind of codependent relationship that the film both criticizes and idolizes. After being dumped by her loser boyfriend, Milly declares she’s going to stay single forever like her role-model-mother. Daphne, ever the meddler, decides she knows best and secretly sets up an online dating profile for her daughter in order to prescreen candidates for Milly to fall in love with. (This comes after a scene in which Keaton accidentally stumbles onto a porn site; Because I Said So seems to think that putting Diane Keaton in embarrassing situations is the same thing as comedy. This ain’t exactly Annie Hall.)

A largely underused Lauren Graham and a totally underused Piper Perabo play Milly’s older sisters. Graham is a psychologist in a stable marriage. Perabo is, I don’t know, I think she’s married and I think she’s supposed to be the “wild one,” but she only has about three lines which means she barely makes an impression. Graham’s profession is largely an excuse for exposition and she feeds the audience helpful lines explaining that Milly can’t settle down because she never really knew her father.

One of the central conceits of Because I Said is that three grown sisters and their mother spend a large portion of their lives hanging out and doing stereotypical-girl things (going to the spa, buying shoes, trying on clothes, making conference calls). Which means we’re treated to a scene in which Lauren Graham, Piper Perabo, and Mandy Moore stand around in lingerie and tease Diane Keaton for her granny-panties. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Back to that string of events Because I Said So calls a plot: After a truly offensive montage of all the ugly/crazy/weird guys that answer Daphne’s ad (because people don’t matter at all outside of their appearance and first impression), Daphne finally meets a diamond in the rough, a rich-architect-type (aren’t they always?) played by Tom Everett Scott. I know Scott as Guy Patterson from one of my all time favorite films That Thing You Do! I’m sure his character has a name in Because I Said So, but I’d prefer to refer to him as Shades. (For the uninitiated, Shades was Guy Patterson’s nickname. I realize I’m starting to descend into madness, but it’s the only way I can get through this review.) Shades seems like the perfect guy for Milly, but to add a hitch in the proceedings, Daphne also meets Random-Musician-Man (Gabriel Macht; his character’s real name is Johnny, but again, let me have my fun). Random-Musician-Man has watched Daphne go on various blind-dates all afternoon and decides he wants to be the one to court the daughter of a crazy person. (He explains, “I like you. I have an odd instinct I’d like her too.” Yeah, that makes sense.) Thus we have the central conflict of the movie: rich, boring architect vs. poor, soulful musician. Take a wild guess as to which one Milly is going to fall for. I have to admit, at this point the film pretty much lost me as there is no situation in which I’m not rooting for Shades to get the girl.

In an impressive show of restraint, it’s a full 25 minutes into the movie before Keaton utters the titular line (during an excursion to the mall where the girls again strip down to their underwear). Most of the film’s second act consists of Keaton dropping things, tripping, and otherwise embarrassing herself. One of the film’s most repeated jokes is that women carry a lot of stuff in their purses (talk about cutting edge!) Milly ends up dating both men simultaneously (unbeknownst to either of them). Keaton meddles some more. It turns out Random-Musician-Man is also a doting-single-dad (the ultimate sympathy trump card) which inadvertently gives the film a bit of a creepy undertone: Milly never knew her father and now she’s attracted to a man who is raising a child. Freud would have a field day!

Even as a person with a high tolerance for shitty rom coms, the middle portion of this film is nearly unwatchable. Instead of wish fulfillment romance, we get lots of flustered, anxious fights between an unlikable mother and daughter who are enabling each other’s neuroses. There’s a weird frantic energy to the whole thing. Moore in particular (whose work I’ve enjoyed elsewhere, I don’t think it’s her fault she keeps landing these horrible roles) is constantly wringing her hands and rushing her lines. The physical comedy continues to have a slightly desperate air as the gags grow more and more ridiculous. Keaton walks in holding a cake, it’s bound to be only a few moments before it gets thrust into her face. By the time she’s driving down the road, hitting her malfunctioning GPS with a shoe, I was about ready to quit.

Things thankfully pick up about two-thirds of the way through. Daphne gets laryngitis and decides to move-in with Milly to recuperate (because, that makes sense). Once Keaton is silenced, some of the franticness calms down and the film takes time to breath. Moore brings a certain flustered sweetness to a scene where she describes an orgasm to her mother (who's never had one) and keeps the whole thing from becoming cringe-worthy. Daphne falls for Random-Musician-Man’s father, played by Stephen Collins (aka Mr. Camden from 7th Heaven), and they have a first kiss that feels awkwardly-charming rather than unwatchably-awkward. Tony Hale (aka Buster Bluth from Arrested Development) has a cameo as one of Lauren Graham’s patients that nearly steals the movie; you can tell he and Lauren Graham probably had a lot of fun on set. He’s more funny in two minutes than Keaton is the entire movie.

To its credit Because I Said So takes a surprisingly serious approach to its central premise. I made quite a few notes as I watched this film about Milly’s manipulative behavior in dating two guys at once (that isn’t gendered, I’d say the same thing if it were a guy in her situation). Both relationships are pretty serious: she’s sleeping with both men, has been introduced to both of their families and one even hints at marriage. For such a frothy rom com, I had a lot of moral concerns about the main heroine. Thankfully the movie deals with those concerns head on, as Random-Musician-Man catches Milly with her other beau and essentially reads the above paragraph to her. There’s a hint of a decent movie in their fight scene, but it’s unfortunately not the movie we get to see.

But I’m all for celebrating the small victories and the movie at least takes a stab at showing some consequences to both the romantic relationships and the mother/daughter one. Milly dumps Shades (I’m honestly not sure why she continued to date him for so long when it was pretty clear she didn’t really like him. Sure it injects some drama into the film, but it also makes Milly seem remarkably selfish and unhealthy indecisive). To punish her for the meddling, Milly stops speaking to her mother, which gives Keaton’s character a chance to have a bit of an arc and sort of learn a lesson. There’s even a montage of people being unhappy for an extended period of time and not just immediately getting over their concerns.

If this praise seems lukewarm, that’s because it is. Any movie that relies consistently on reaction shots from a dog probably has issues that can’t be resolved with one or two decent scenes. Because I Said So ends with one of the absolute worst romantic reunions in any rom com (in a cooking-for-one class Milly teaches to senior citizens). Random-Musician-Man’s declarations of love feel super creepy and non-romantic. Then a lot of old people start kissing each other and any goodwill Because I Said So earned in its third act evaporates.

The whole dull venture ends at the wedding of Daphne and Mr. Camden (which means Milly and Random-Musician-Man are step-siblings. Weird). The girls sing, Keaton does some more desperate physical comedy, and then a cake flies off a cliff and lands on Tony Hale because fuck it. Honestly I don’t have much more to say. It’s bad, but it’s not atrocious. There are enough halfway decent scenes that I can’t write it off entirely, but then again it’s certainly not worth sitting through two hours of dreck for a few engaging minutes. So there you have it dear readers, I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to write this and hopefully the next rom com I watch will inspire a little more critical thought. In the meantime let’s just end this the way Because I Said so would want us to, by imagining an adorable dog tilting its head inquisitively. That’s enough to save this review, right? 

Reality factor: Purses are messy! People on dating sites can be creepy! Old people will kiss other old people when given the chance! Thanks for the insights Because I Said So.  
[1 out of 5] 

Eye-candy factor: There are plenty of shots of girls in underwear and none of Shades in his skivvies. I’m all for equal opportunity eye-candy, but give me something here.  
[2 out of 5] 

Aww factor: Surprisingly Diane Keaton and Stephen Collins’ romance is the sweetest thing about this film. Too bad it’s only given about 10 minutes of screentime.  
[2 out of 5]

Review

Love, Wedding, Marriage

Released: 2011

Director: Dermot Mulroney

Starring: Mandy Moore & Kellan Lutz

Grade: F

After finishing Love, Wedding, Marriage I had the desire to retroactively raise the grades of all my previous reviews. This movie is so bad every other crappy rom com seems better by comparison. Love, Wedding, Marriage is directed by long-time rom com veteran actor Dermot Mulroney. Mulroney is suave enough as the romantic lead in films like My Best Friend’s Wedding and The Wedding Date, but his wedding-themed directorial debut trips down the aisle before face planting into a chuppah of horrible.

The film stars Mandy Moore as Ava, a successful marriage counselor who returns from her honeymoon to discover that her parents are getting a divorce, weeks before their 30^th anniversary. Ava decides to use all the tricks in her psychologist handbook to get them back together. It’s like The Parent Trap except instead of two adorably precocious twins, it’s a shrill twenty-seven-year-old doing the scheming. As Ava focuses her energies on forcing her parents back together, she loses sight of her own marriage to pretty-boy Kellan Lutz (best known for a very minor role in the Twilight series). In the great tradition of ridiculous movie-careers, Lutz manages a winery. Highlights of said career include a blonde assistant bursting into the room to announce, “Your interview with Wine Magazine is confirmed for one o’clock,” and later, “It’s your conference call to discuss the new chardonnay. They’re on line two.” The wine business can be so demanding.

Rather than focus on character development, Mulroney just tries to cram as many visual gags into the movie as possible. Here’s an old guy taking a body shot! Here’s a fat lady doing a trust fall! Scenes alternate between unfunny and painfully unfunny. And to top it all off there’s a bizarre cameo by Christopher Lloyd as a hippy-dippy marriage counselor.

There’s not a strong performance among the bunch. As Ava’s mom, Jane Seymour's biggest achievement seems to be remembering her lines. James Brolin, as Ava’s father, is trying a bit harder, but the poor guy just has nothing to work with. His biggest dramatic plot involves deciding to become an observant Jew, a thread that is neither enlightening nor funny. Jessica Szohr (Gossip Girl’s infamous Vanessa!) is fine as the slutty little sister, but she looks so unlike Moore it’s hard to understand why she was cast in the first place. Lutz is there to take his shirt off (which he does quite often) and Moore, who I like in other films, is just dreadfully whiny, manipulative and naive. To be fair, I’m not sure even an all-star cast could have made something coherent out of this script.

The writers, Anouska Chydzik and Caprice Crane, have only a handful of minor credits to their name (including a few episodes of the new 90201 and the MTV Movie Awards) and their first big-screen endeavor probably won’t have studios scrambling to greenlight their future projects. Characters say exactly what they’re feeling and continue to have the same arguments over and over again throughout the film’s painful 90 minute run time. There’s nothing logical to anyone’s behavior. Ava, a licensed marriage counselor, makes her own decisions based on horoscopes (a trait which is promptly dropped about halfway through the film). She also finds it incredibly romantic that one of her friends gets married to a hot Polish woman after a drunken encounter at a bar. This is a woman who fixes other people’s relationships? I can’t imagine her functioning at the grocery store, let alone as a psychologist.

The movie pulls deep from the well of rom com clichés- karaoke, couples classes, speed dating, depressed women eating ice cream out of the carton. In what I can only imagine was a desperate attempt to inject some energy into the script, there are one or two big “twists.” Not only are they unsurprising, they’re not even interesting. By the end of the movie I disliked Ava so much I was actively rooting for her marriage to fail. Don’t get me wrong, I had fun trying to figure out how many ways she could end up sad and alone, but I hardly think that was the intention of the screenwriters. The look of the movie is bland in a Pottery-Barn-catalogue kind of way, and it’s hard to get too worked up about two people whose reunion comes as they speed towards each other in his-and-hers convertibles.

The idea of focusing a rom com on a couple already in love (rather than one falling in love) is not a bad one. Unfortunately Love, Wedding, Marriage has nothing going for it beyond a semi-interesting premise and an attractive cast. I have a high tolerance for bad movies, but even I could barely stomach this one. Movies are meant to entertain, to provoke thought and to arouse emotion. Love, Wedding, Marriage fails on all three accounts and does so in such a shrill way, it’s not even fun to watch it crash and burn.

Reality factor: Ridiculously young, wealthy, beautiful people who meddle in each other’s problems instead of going to work. Thankfully the over-the-top physical comedy was kept to a minimum or I may have just turned it off. [2 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: There are plenty of scenes where Kellan Lutz takes his shirt off, but not even a million shirtless Lutzs could improve this film. [3 out of 5]

Aww factor: Nope. [0 out of 5]

Review

DEFINITELY, MAYBE 

Released: 2008
Director: Adam Brooks
Starring: Abigail Breslin, some potential moms & Ryan Reynolds

Grade: A

 

I take movie watching very seriously. Probably too seriously. If my friends and I venture to the movie theater or rent a movie, I have strict no talking policy. I won’t even respond if someone asks, “What did he say?” If you missed it, too bad. (This might be why no one wants to watch movies with me). The one time I make an exception to my movie watching policy is when I’m watching a movie on TV. Then pretty much all rules go out the window. Unlike at the movie theater or video store where I spend money on a particular film I really want to see, a movie on TV is just the least objectionable option. Scenes are edited out, commercials awkwardly break-up the film’s rhythm, and those lovely little commercials can add up to an hour to the movie’s run time. It’s easy to channel surf during the commercial breaks, leave to make a snack, or decide now might be a good time to reorganize your DVD collection.

This is how I first started watching Definitely, Maybe on FX yesterday. I actually watched the first five minutes thinking I was about to watch The Proposal, another Ryan Reynold’s rom com. Definitely, Maybe is essentially How I Met Your Mother the movie. About-to-be-divorced dad Will Hayes (Reynolds) agrees to tell his daughter (Abigail Breslin) the story of how he fell in love with her mother. That story involves Will’s three great loves- Emily (Elizabeth Banks), the college sweetheart, April (Isla Fisher), the opinionated friend, and Summer (Rachel Weisz), the free spirited journalist.

I started to watch this movie in the halfhearted way I watch many movies on TV. I heated up last night’s couscous for lunch and I chatted with my roommate about her plans for the day. About halfway through, though, something started to happened. I no longer walked away during the commercials. I closed my computer and turned my full attention to the TV screen. Without even realizing it, I was totally invested in this unassuming little romantic comedy.

Definitely, Maybe is a somewhat treacherous premise for a rom com. It’s got a precocious  child, a Ted Moseby-like leading man, and three female leads, which in the rom com world often equals three over-the-top, irrational women. Definitely, Maybe manages to deftly avoid these pitfalls. Abigail Breslin’s character, Maya, toes the line of being too cheeky, but brings some nice emotional depth to the movie’s final stretch. Reynolds is surprisingly funny in an understated way and has believable chemistry with all four of his leading ladies. There are some limits to his range as an actor, but the direction largely hides these, allowing Reynolds to shine as both a comic and dramatic presence.

It’s pretty common for romantic comedies to give the male protagonist conflicting love interests. What’s not common, though, is to make them all equally likeable. Normally, the women who are doomed for rejection are deeply flawed- too controlling, too overworked or too desperate, and there’s little suspense over who the guy will end up with (hint, hint: the one who’s not crazy.) In Definitely, Maybe, however, each of the female romantic interests has her own strengths and flaws (hmmm, almost like a real woman might) and I was uncertain who Will would end up with. Even better, my guess turned out to be wrong and the film genuinely surprised me.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how my various friends fulfill different roles in my life. I feel like I’m a slightly different person around each of them. (Maybe that’s why I’m so neurotic at parties). It’s not that I’m changing my personality, it’s more like each person brings out something different in me. Definitely, Maybe does a good job of depicting how each of Will’s three relationships offer him a different version of himself. With Emily he’s comfortable and romantic, with Summer he’s funny and impulsive, with April he’s opinionated and passionate. Definitely, Maybe doesn’t present one woman as “better” than the others and doesn’t argue that there is only one person for each of us. Instead it depicts love as a journey not just a goal. It’s a cliched message, but the set-up is unique enough to keep the film from feeling stale.

Many rom coms try to cram an entire relationship into a quick whirlwind romance which ends up making all the characters feel shallow and impulsive. The flashback structure of Definitely, Maybe allows the characters’ relationships to build over years rather than weeks. Time itself is almost a character in the film. Emily remarks that change is good so long as both members of a relationship are changing together. April’s theory is that people don’t find “the one” until they reach a certain age and decide it’s time to settle down. The script gives its characters the time they need to test both theories. Growing up doesn’t happen over night and the film’s clever storytelling structure gives the film a realistic timeline while allowing us to skip past the boring parts.

Definitely, Maybe could have been a by-the-numbers rom com, instead it’s a surprisingly adult depiction of growing up, messing up, and figuring out what you really want in life. It has a happy ending, yes, but it also doesn’t shy away from heartbreak, and doesn’t hide the fact that not everyone ends up with a fairytale life. While the tone of the film is firmly optimistic, it’s tinged with just enough realism to keep it grounded. It’s refreshing, in fact, to see a modern day romantic comedy that avoids overblown drama in favor of a more realistic portrayal of love and friendship.

In some ways Definitely, Maybe might be the perfect movie to watch on TV. It’s flashback format gives the film natural breaks, perfect for inserting commercials. And in some ways, those commercials help reinforce the sense of time passing. (The film’s 112 minute runtime was extended to 180 on TV). The film doesn’t take itself too seriously, but has enough mystery to keep a casual viewer invested. And while it’s not exactly a gritty real-life drama, the relationships rang true to life and got me thinking about my own life. Pretty high praise for a star filled rom com. (Compare this with something like the pure-fluff Valentine’s Day).

Perhaps what’s most remarkable is that Definitely, Maybe got me rethinking my strict movie watching rules. I think I can definitely say that taking movies a little less seriously wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. Maybe.  

Reality factor: A surprisingly realistic look at how love isn’t as black and white as the movies portray it.  [4 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: If there’s one thing I like more than romantic Ryan Reynolds, it’s adorable dad Ryan Reynolds.  [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: Ryan Reynolds gets to be four times as charming as he normally is- playing off a demure Elizabeth Banks, a sexy Rachel Weisz, a feisty Isla Fisher and an adorable Abigail Breslin. [4 out of 5]

What did you think of Definitely, Maybe? Mold-breaking romance or clichéd rom com? Let me know in the

Review

THE DECOY BRIDE

Released: 2011
Director: Sheree Folkson
Starring: Kelly Macdonald & David Tennant

Grade: B+
  

Unless you’ve been exclusively watching rom coms and Doctor Who episodes, you’ve probably never heard of this movie. If you’re nerdy passions happen to align with mine, then chances are high that Netflix Instant has constantly been flinging this movie in your face too. You see, this is a rom com starring the Doctor himself, David Tennant, and it’s cheap looking poster has been staring out at me for weeks on the “Netflix Recommends” page. The Decoy Bride is about as formulaic as they come. It’s the kind of convoluted yet predictable plot you might find in an ABC Family made-for-TV movie you spend the afternoon half-watching as you clean your living room. Its UK roots, however, give it a certain kind of charm and a couple of really lovely performances kept me way more engaged than I expected. I fired up my Netflix, fully expecting this film to be terrible. That might be part of the reason I enjoyed it as much as I did.

To fill you in, The Decoy Bride is a small film produced by a British production company called Ecosse Films and made on a shoestring budget. If you want to get a taste of what you’ve been missing, you can check out the trailer here. The plot is fairly silly, even for a rom com. Since I’m again assuming you’ve never heard of this one, I’ll fill you in on some of the highlights. Famous actress and it-girl Lara Tyler (Alice Eve) is determined to keep her wedding to author James Arber (David Tennant) paparazzi-free. Deterred by freakishly dedicated photographers in the past, Lara decides to move the wedding to the tiny Scottish island of Hegg ,where James theoretically spent time doing research for his one and only successful novel. Turns out, however, he’s never actually been to Hegg (“You googled the entire book!”) which leads to one or two lost-on-the-island jokes and not much else.

Hegg, as we learn, has a population of 75 people and the most exciting thing to happen recently is the drowning of one of Donald’s sheep. Yet this is where Katie Nic Aodh (Kelly Macdonald) calls home. Katie is a writer whose biggest gig so far was writing the description of pants for a catalogue. She’s got a rough history with men and after her most recent break-up, she moves back in with her mom, reclaims her job at the local convenience store, and declares herself "man vegan." She also reclaims the title of only-single-girl-under-50 on the island. 

Katie is the film’s heart, a down-on-her-luck girl who manages to be both self-deprecating and optimistic. Kelly MacDonald is truly a delight and I was shocked to find out this was her first and only rom com. She’s got great comedic timing and her quirkiness never feels put on. Two-thirds of the way through the movie, Katie’s mom asks if she likes James. Katie replies, “He's an emotionally retarded arty-boy who’s in love with another woman. Of course I like him.” I don’t know if I’ve ever related more to a rom com heroine.

There are a whole lot of plotlines in The Decoy Bride, most of which are entirely unnecessary. There’s a paparazzo obsessed with snapping Lara’s wedding photo who later falls in love with her (it’s just as creepy as it sounds). Lara has a stressed out team including her agent Steve (a toned-down Michael Urie of Ugly Betty fame) who must cater to her whims. Katie has a sick, wheelchair-bound mother and there’s a smattering of other Hegg residents who could have been used much more effectively if we’d gotten a little more time to know them.

The biggest problem, other than the predictability of the film, is that there’s no chemistry whatsoever between James and his bride-to-be Lara. Their whole relationship is just confusing. Apparently Lara is the hottest actress in Hollywood and James is in love with her largely because he feels he’s supposed to be in love with her. It’s hard to imagine Alice Eve either as a sex symbol or a brilliant actress, however, so the whole thing just feels hollow.

After Lara is spooked by a photog on Hegg, she goes on the lam and Steve decides to stage a fake wedding to throw off the press. Enter the titular decoy bride, our very own Katie (she’s the only young, single girl, remember?)  Katie accidentally signs her own name on the wedding register and she and James end up married. What a kooky dilemma! Katie and James must track down Lara, avoid the paparazzi, get a divorce, and of course, fall in love in the process.

The film is pretty much a checklist of clichés. Meet cute (in an abandoned bathroom), up the stakes (accidental marriage), rescue scene (Katie almost drowns), sexual tension (we’ve got to change our clothes separated only by a thin curtain as slow music plays). The major plot points are by-the-numbers, but thankfully some of the details are unique, courtesy of both the script and the actors. Plus I can’t complain too much about any film that finds an excuse to dress David Tennant like a long lost member of the Bee Gees.

Thankfully the farcical, over-the-top physical comedy that plagues so many modern rom coms is kept at a minimum and the film has a quiet British sensibility about it that I really enjoyed. Tennant is an unusual choice for a male romantic lead given that his real strengths lay decidedly in comedy and drama, and most leading men aren’t really allowed to reach either extreme. (Except in Shakespeare). Tennant does the best he can with the material he’s given, bringing a great sense of understated humor to a role that’s largely ill-defined for most of the movie.

You might be asking yourself what’s redeemable about this film and I have one word for you: Tenn-Donald. Mac-Nant. Alright, maybe their names don’t combine well, but Tennant and MacDonald are just so good together they deserve their own stupid nickname. Their onscreen chemistry is palpable and even though they’re just going through the bickering-turns-to-loving paces, it’s a joy to watch them do it. They are both so unassuming and awkward that their clichéd romance feels somehow fresh. I really can’t say enough about how good these two are and how good they are together. I suppose you can just toss it up to some weird Scottish connection (Tennant is Scottish as well, although he uses a British accent here.) Seriously, if this film were just the two of them trapped in a room together I would probably have it on my top ten favorite movies list.

I also have to give this film major points for having a rom com ending which reaches some great emotional high points without feeling too over-the-top. It’s a quiet, sweet ending to a film that is only sometimes quiet and sweet. It made my genuinely smile which is a rare feat for a cynical rom com reviewer like me.

The real question remains: is this movie worth watching? For me, the answer is a resounding yes- so long as you know what to expect going in. The Decoy Bride has shades of Knotting Hill (actor falls in love with an average joe) and the 2010 Amy Adam’s vehicle Leap Year (foreigner explores a tiny UK island looking for love.) While The Decoy Bride is nowhere near as good as Knotting Hill, it’s far superior to Leap Year, thanks largely to its fantastic central pairing. I wouldn’t make a special trip to the video store to rent it, but if you’ve got Netflix Instant and an hour and a half to waste, you could do a lot worse than watching two Scottish actors charm the pants off one another. 

Reality factor: Kelly MacDonald’s lovely grounded performance and her chemistry with Tennant are the only believable aspects in this overblown Hollywood fairy tale. [1 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: Only David Tennant can make high-waisted bell bottoms and fur vests look good. [4 out of 5]

Aww factor: I would watch a whole movie that was nothing but David Tennant kissing people on the forehead. [5 out of 5]

Review

THE FIVE YEAR ENGAGEMENT

Released: 2012
Director: Nicholas Stoller
Starring: Emily Blunt & Jason Segel

Grade: C
 

There's a ten minute chunk in the middle of The Five Year Engagement that perfectly encapsulates everything the movie gets right and everything it gets horribly wrong. In one scene, a late night bedroom chat slowly builds into a full-blown argument and ends with a sweet epilogue. It's a well-acted, well-paced moment that manages to be both honest and funny. In the next scene Jason Segel has grown a mountain man beard and serves his guests venison pie as everyone drinks from mugs made out of deer hoofs. It’s gross, painfully unfunny, and a complete tonal shift the film never quite recovers from.

Tonal shifts (which were also an issue in Salmon Fishing in Yemen, the last Emily Blunt film I reviewed) are one of my biggest pet peeves in filmmaking. I'm willing to get on board with just about any world a filmmaker wants to create and I love films that play around with structure, but there should be some consistency in the world of the film. All films require the audience to suspend its disbelief and accept the world of the film. That world is usually established within the first fifteen minutes of the film and breaking it is jarring and confusing for the audience. In other words, once Lord of the Rings is firmly established as a dramatic fantasy, it shouldn't introduce an alien invasion in the third film. (See also: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). 

The Five Year Engagement starts out as a charming film about a relatively grounded love affair between two sarcastic people. It's got a low-key, hangout vibe and while some of the supporting players are a little heightened, the whole thing feels fairly realistic. To jump into an over-the-top comedy halfway through the runtime only serves to remind the audience that there is an outside force controlling the world onscreen. It's a shame that such a drastic derailment is inflicted on an otherwise charming film.

As the film opens Tom (Jason Segel), is nervously headed to an elaborate proposal with his girlfriend of one year, Violet (Blunt). She notices his odd behavior and he spills the beans on the plan. It's a charming moment between the two and immediately establishes both as enjoyable characters. Seeing a big-foot-sized man nervous is always funny and Violet's immediate apology over spoiling the surprise subverts a lot of expected rom-com cliches. In a lesser movie, Violet would have thrown a fit over having the surprised ruined (in the way high-strung-female-characters are wont to do in rom coms). Instead, Violet is overjoyed and eager to continue with the Tom's plan, even though she knows how it will end.

Emily Blunt is one of the best rom com actresses working right now and she brings a lovely improvisational feel to her dialogue. Her characters tend to be smart, funny and rational in a way most female rom com characters aren't. I don't know if the credit lays with Blunt's acting, or if she just picks good scripts for herself, but it's refreshing to see an actress play a rational rom com heroine for once. Segel is her equal in every way, bringing the same loping, goofy quality he's known for on How I Met Your Mother.

After the initial engagement, a series of various setbacks and surprises continue to push back the date of the wedding. Violet's sister Suzie (Alison Brie) finds herself pregnant and quickly marries the father, Tom's best friend Alex (Chris Pratt). (On a side note this means a Community actor marries a Parks & Rec actor. I don't watch either show but I'm sure TV nerds everywhere are passing out from the sheer joy of it all).

Violet gets accepted to a Psychology PhD program at the University of Michigan and the two decide to officially postpone the wedding and move to Michigan. Violet and Tom exchange sunny San Francisco (where Tom works as a chef) for snowy Ann Arbor (where Tom gets a job at a fast food joint). As Violet blossoms (pun intended!), Tom wilts, feeling stifled by the small-town-deer-hunting mentality of Ann Arbor, but trying to hide his unhappiness for Violet's sake. Everything starts out well enough, with Blunt and Siegel establishing some very believable chemistry and a theme of sacrifice building nicely. And then things take a turn for the bizarre.

The film was marketed as being "from the producers of Bridesmaids" and about half way through it seems someone decided there wasn't enough crudeness to warrant that label and decided to up the ante. The late night fight scene I mentioned earlier marks the films high point and pretty much the last moment I truly enjoyed. The fight occurs because Violet has been offered an extension on her program that would require the couple to stay in Michigan for several more years. Tom feels like he is giving up his dreams for Violet, Violet is afraid of giving up her dreams for him. It's a well-written scene that manages to be both touching and funny. Tom announces he wants to be alone, but stops Violet when she starts to climb out of bed. "I just want to be alone with you." It's a sweet line that again plays against the traditional conventions of romantic comedy fights. It's a shame the film can't trust moments like this one to carry the comedy.

Instead things go horribly awry and Tom becomes a bizarre caricature of himself complete with muttonchops and an obsession with deer hunting. I know I'm harping on this shift a lot, and part of me thinks I shouldn't let it ruin what began as strong film, but it does a gross disservice to an otherwise likable character in a way that is neither believable nor funny. This scene is so weird that my roommate and I felt certain it was a bizarre dream-sequence. The film went on for a good twenty minutes before we realized no one was going to wake-up and set the world right again.

Tom's downfall drives the couple apart and one drunken night Violet kisses her professor/colleague Winton (a very reserved Rhys Ifans). Guilt ridden, Violet reaffirms her love for Tom and decides to restart plans for their wedding. Much less picky this time around, the two agree on an unwanted Korean wedding cake and a moose-loge reception. At the last minute however, Violet confesses her indiscretion and Tom can't seem to shake it from his mind. At their rehearsal dinner he chases Winton through the streets in a scene that works better than it should due to Ifans' smart choice to underplay everything in a that oh-so-British way. Tom drunkenly sort-of hooks-up with a coworker (in another painfully unfunny scene that relies much too heavily on the crazy-sex-driven-woman trope), passes out in the snow and has a toe amputated. (I'm not exaggerating when I say things get weird). Tom and Violet breakup, he moves back to San Francisco and she shacks up with Winton.

It was at this point that I began to check my watch pretty regularly. The film clocks in at two-hours and the repetitive nature of the on-again/off-again wedding plans make it feel even longer. Showing Violet and Tom in their post-engagement-breakup relationships feels like a waste of time, particularly when it seems obvious the two of them will end up back together before long. That reunion comes at Violet's grandmother's funeral (the death of grandparents is a running joke throughout the film). Tom and Violet decide to take things slowly over the summer and then, of course, realize they are actually meant for each other. In the last fifteen minutes the film suddenly seems to remember it's supposed to be a romantic comedy and turns out all of the stops with not one, but two proposals, and a goofy pick-your-own-adventure-wedding. 

I could quibble with the fact that Violet and Tom agreeing to get married without settling those crucial issues like where they'll live is kind of disconcerting. The film is pushing hard for an it-will-never-be-perfect theme, but that is largely ignoring the fact that it's probably a good idea to have conversations about where to live and whether or not to have kids before tying the knot. Since we're living in the rom com world where romance trumps all, I can't really criticize the film for taking the easy way out. 

The ultimate problem is that The Five Year Engagement tries to be both a slice-of-life romance and a crude comedy and doesn't really succeed at either. There are some well written and well acted moments, such as when Violet argues that Winton kissed her rather than the other way around and Tom replies "There was a reason he felt like that was an option." The film is really at it's best when it just lets it's leads hang out together, but unfortunately Blunt and Siegel spend more time apart than together onscreen. The supporting characters are largely too over the top (a common complaint in these reviews) and pull too much focus from the central story. I could have done entirely without the Alex/Suzie romance and their rapidly aging children (their supposedly five-year-old child looks like she's about nine). On the other hand, Mindy Kaling, as one of Violet's colleagues, manages to steal just about every scene she's in. (Which I also complimented her for in my review of No Strings Attached.) Her deadpan delivery of "I would eat ten million donuts after watching The Notebook" is in the running for best lines of the movie. Like Blunt, Kaling manages to deftly make her dialogue seem improvised and genuine.

Unlike a typical rom com, The Five Year Engagement tries to engage (pun also intended!) with some more serious themes. Sacrifice, compromise and honesty are touched upon throughout and given Violet's degree in psychology, there's also a lot about delayed gratification. Eat a stale donut now or wait twenty minutes for a fresh one. It's a rather silly metaphor but it's a stab at something a little deeper than just romantic fun. The characters, despite their goofiness, have a certain maturity about them and I appreciate that Violet and Tom's breakup is done on polite terms, rather than in an overblown fight. Likewise, their reunion feels like a natural progression rather than a plot development. Without the bizarrely unfunny bits and with a less hokey ending, there might be a pretty great movie hidden inside The Five Year Engagement. 

Reality factor: I’ve talked enough about the fact that I don’t like when movies shift from a realistic tone to a heightened one, so instead let’s just talk about how cool it is that we get a male character giving up his career to support the career aspirations of a female one. It's not a common storyline in any medium and it's nice to see that Violet's career is taken as seriously as Tom's. (I'm getting shades of Friday Night Lights here. Come on y'all.)  [3 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: Lily would probably be excited to see Jason Segel half-naked, but I’m not sure I am. [2 out of 5]

Aww factor: Blunt and Segel have a believable chemistry that keeps their relationship grounded even as the movie spins out of control. Also Emily Blunt as a weird sex-mime is simultaneously hilarious and sweet. [4 out of 5]

Review #9

SOMETHING BORROWED

 

Released: 2010

Director: Luke Greenfield

Starring: Ginnifer Goodwin & Kate Hudson

Grade: F

 

It was in a blinding rage after first seeing Something Borrowed that the idea for Rom Coms and the Real World was born. I wanted a place to discuss why this movie made me so angry and how it reflects so much of what is wrong with the way women are presented onscreen. In my last review, I mentioned that Valentine’s Day is inoffensively bad; I only wish I could say the same thing about Something Borrowed.

Some forms of media are intentionally offensive. American Pie markets itself on being crude, and South Park actively attempts to insult as many groups of people as possible. A film like Something Borrowed commits a much greater crime: It’s offensiveness is hidden behind the sheen of a rom com. It’s been packaged into something that resembles a heartwarming comedy, completely masking the terrible message that drives the film. I’m not saying all films need to deliver a moral message or present characters that are perfect; flawed characters make for compelling storytelling. But the audience should be able to learn something from the flaws and mistakes of the characters they are watching. Something Borrowed presents its deeply flawed characters as successful heroes. Romantic comedies are essentially wish fulfillment for women, and this film sets perhaps the worst example I can imagine for young women to emulate

The film opens on the 30th birthday of our heroine, Rachel (Ginnifer Goodwin). She shows up unescorted to the surprise party she already knows about, thus instantly setting up the dynamic between Rachel and her best friend Darcy (Kate Hudson). Darcy is the self-absorbed party girl who uses Rachel’s birthday as a platform to talk about her upcoming nuptials to finance Dex (Colin Egglesfield). Darcy’s not mean spirited, she’s just self-centered. The only one who seems to realize this is Ethan, Rachel’s best friend, played by the always-endearing John Krasinski.

After a late night confession of a law school crush, Rachel and Dex tumble into bed together only to wake up blurry-eyed and guilt-ridden the next morning. For a movie that introduces it's central conflict in the first ten minutes, Something Borrowed manages to be incredibly boring for most of its run time. The filmmakers decided it was a good idea to stretch the film across an entire summer, so instead of a tension-filled-romantic-romp, we get a drawn-out saga about successful people moping around.

Rachel is a common rom-com-trope: the hardworking girl who puts everyone else’s happiness before her own (see also: Katherine Heigl in 27 Dresses). Even though she liked Dex in law school, Rachel immediately backed down when she realized Darcy was also interested. Six years later, the unresolved connection between Dex and Rachel comes bubbling back to the surface. It’s not a terrible premise for a movie. There might be something worth exploring in Rachel’s assumptions that she’s not good enough for Dex. Or in the way an off-handed “we’re just friends” can nip a relationship in the bud before it even has a chance to start. Any of this potential is wasted, however, with lazily handled flashbacks and melodramatic music that screams out “this moment is important,” all of which robs the film of any emotional reality.

The characters continually pack-off and head to the Hamptons for seemingly no other reason than the director wanted to spend time there. The film starts to feel more like a Gap-ad than a movie during the extended scenes of people goofing around on the beach and lazing in their expensive beach house. There are some awkward exchanges between Dex and Rachel, some more moping, and the introduction of two embarrassingly humorless characters: a crazy girl obsessed with John Krasinski (Ashley Williams) and a stoner-dude who just wants to get laid (Steve Howey).

This movie focuses on people who don’t know how to grow up. Rachel and Darcy are obsessed with the colleges they did and did not get into. Dex and Rachel hold onto a flirtation that barely got off the ground six years ago. Rachel is remarkably passive, letting Dex’s whims dictate their on-again, off-again affair. The only character who seems capable of leading an adult life is Ethan, the film’s most well rounded character. I don’t know if the credit belongs to John Krasinski, but his friendship with Rachel is pretty much the only redeeming factor in the movie. He defends Rachel, tries to get her to stand up for herself, and has a good sense of humor to boot. Rachel accuses him of being an asshole and he responds, “Yeah, maybe I am. But I'm the only asshole here who gives a shit about you.” It’s one of the only lines in the whole movie that actually resonates.

In a better movie, one about growing up and realizing you deserve better, Rachel would have recognized that Dex was treating her like shit and found happiness with a man who truly cared about her. Instead, Ethan admits that he loves Rachel (John Krasinski certainly knows how to deliver a love confession) and she turns him down. (At this point I wrote a giant "ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?" across my notes.) Why even include the love confession if it leads to nothing? Am I supposed to feel proud that Rachel rejected a super cute, super funny, super caring guy for a bland douchebag?

The performances are a mixed bag. Ginnifer Goodwin, who I normally like, is given so little to work with that I can’t really fault her for her lackluster performance. Colin Egglesfield is so boring he’s basically a nonentity in this film. Other than a stale-crush, there’s nothing that Dex and Rachel have in common and there’s little chemistry to make me invest in their relationship. I did rather like Kate Hudson’s over-the-top portrayal of Darcy. She’s performative, but girls like Darcy do tend to be performative, self-consciously drawing attention to themselves at every moment.

Lest we start to like Darcy too much, however, the film makes sure to clearly define her as a bad person. She’s been cheating on Dex so it’s okay that she loses him in the end. Even though both Dex and Darcy were unfaithful, the full blame for the end of the relationship falls on Darcy’s shoulders. Dex and Rachel talk about feeling guilty, but it doesn’t stop them from essentially dating each other behind Darcy’s back and making out on Rachel’s rooftop all while Dex remains engaged. Since Darcy is immature and self-centered, and Rachel is just such a good person and feels so bad, we’re supposed to side with Rachel. 

Again, it all comes down to that idea of growing up. Dex refuses to breakup with Darcy because his parents don’t want him to (we get a bit of nonsense about his mom being depressed that doesn’t really lead anywhere).  At 30 years old, I would hope Dex would be able to make his own romantic choices without parental approval. Instead, he’s frozen by indecision, essentially dating two women at once and only on his terms. Rachel is entirely complacent, making a few half-hearted attempts to end things with Dex, yet always coming back to him. In the end Dex dumps Darcy and picks Rachel. Rachel gets the man of her dreams, Darcy gets to have the stoner-dude’s baby, and the two women essentially stop speaking to each other once the truth comes out.

A better movie would realize that the real betrayal isn’t between Dex and Darcy, it’s between Darcy and Rachel, two girls who have been best friends since childhood. Yet it’s impossible to feel upset about their breakup because there are only a handful of scenes in which Rachel and Darcy actually seem to enjoy each other’s company (including a surprisingly charming dance routine to Salt n’ Peppers "Push It"). If Darcy is such an awful friend, why does Rachel continue to put up with her? What drew Darcy and Rachel together in the first place? What are the nuances of their friendship? None of this is really explored. Instead we’re treated to a Rachel/Darcy dirty-dance-off. What an insightful look into the reality of female friendships. Assuming their breakup lasts (and the film suggests it does) Rachel will miss the birth of Darcy’s child and the two will presumably be strangers for the rest of their lives. All of this over a selfish, adulterous man whose only defining characteristic is that he’s handsome. And we’re supposed to leave the theater with a romantic flutter in our hearts.

To add insult to injury, in the last scene of the movie Rachel is seen picking up Dex’s dry cleaning. His dry cleaning. I’m surprised they didn’t show her wearing pearls and baking a cake while waiting for his return from work. I have to wonder if this film was intentionally trying to set back feminism fifty years, or if it stumbled into that message accidentally. To be honest, I’m not sure which explanation is worse.

Reality factor: I’d like to imagine that this film is entirely fictional, but sadly it’s reinforcing the very real idea that it’s worth giving up the things you love to be with an attractive guy. [3 out of 5]

Eye-candy factor: John Krasinski is charming and adorable, but Colin Egglesfield’s smarm cancels it out. [2 out of 5]

Aww factor: This film is more gag-inducing than aww-inducing. [1 out of 5]