He's just not that into you (he's into me).
Just kidding. Sarah and the boys were kind enough to invite me to see He's Just Not That Into You on Saturday, which was exciting on multiple levels. I had high expectations for this movie and it didn't disappoint. It did, however, disappoint the critics.
What were they expecting? I saw a wonderful comedic movie that was both honest, introspective, and touching. It was a perfect ensemble of well-known actors and actresses that I had never seen together on the stage. None of them outshined the other in terms of stardom or lead character. It wasn't a movie about Jennifer Anniston or Ben Afleck or Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Goodwin or whoever. It was a collaboration. It was well-written and funny and entertaining. I want to know what the critics felt was missing or wrong....
I am a person who gets easily bored in movies that other people enjoy. Let's take for example the first Spiderman movie. Love Toby Maguire and Kirsten Dunst. Love the idea of Spiderman. Bored to tears during the first 2/3 of the movie while Toby learns all about his amazing new spider-like superpowers. But we all knew it was coming. And it was all predictable -- gee, it's fun to jump across the roof on a building. I wonder if I can do it again. And again. And again. I wonder if I can swing from building to building. I wonder if....
Two thirds of this movie with just discovering what's going on with his body. It's not that I begrudge him his learning experience -- it's just not that interesting.
But He's Just Not That Into You didn't bore me at all and with over two hours of film on the reel, no less.
Loved it, would consider buying it when it comes out on DVD in three months (because now everything's practically straight to video there's so little time between theater release and DVD lease -- though you can hardly blame movie makers because they can cash in on all that movie theater advertising for the DVD sales, which account for 2/3 of movie profit these days).
Maybe people didn't like it because it's not an oscar winner. It doesn't have a revolutionary or ground-breaking subject: relationships. It has people we've all seen in movies before. But it was funny. The actors meshed well. They were believable as couples. It was a girly romance comedy. And there are so few good ones these days....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I've neither seen the movie nor read the book, so no substantial insight here. Your "review" of the movie itself seems fair, though. From reading the reviews (including one from a blogger whose opinion I trust), it seems the problem isn't with the movie itself, but that they were expecting a truer "adaptation" of the book.
Many women found the book refreshingly honest and empowering. Meanwhile, the movie sounds as if the females are caricatures of "mistakes chicks make", without any sort of growth or self-awareness from their experience. And the girls of the world say, "We're here to overcome our flaws, not have them rubbed in our faces!" Rolling Stone concurs: "Here's a true S&M date movie. Only sadistic men and masochistic women could love it."
Again, haven't seen it, so not a fair judge. Just providing an alternative perspective. :) As a pure, independent, bona fide chick flick with no associations, it may indeed be just fine.
Post a Comment