I like dogs
Last night, J1 and I went to see "Must Love Dogs" for the final movie night of the summer program. We were at the Loews Imax 12 at 68 and B'Way.
When I walked up, I was surprised to see that there was a premier at the theater. It was for "The Constant Gardner," directed by Fernando Meirelles (who broke out with "City of God" a couple years ago). From the preview we saw before our movie, it looks to be a highly depressing movie about genocide in Africa, or something along that line. Anyway, Ralph Fiennes, the star of the movie, was walking the red carpet and being interviewed by random people. Of course, I would have had no idea who he was except that a lot of people were taking his picture. It was cool to see the red carpet and all the crazy entertainment press though.
The movie itself was solid, in my opinion. Of course, it has just been trashed by critics and many viewers. I disagreed, and thought that it was a perfectly fine movie in the genre.
Today, I figured out why I thought the movie was good when so many people thought it was terrible.
From my perspective, romantic comedies are never going to have a decent plot. It is just a limitation of the genre. There is virtually no way to present a believable story of two people falling madly in love in 90 to 120 minutes. The only movies that come close are ones like "When Harry Met Sally," which cover a number of years. But in general, I don't watch a romantic comedy expecting to see a story that I would believe. I assume that the limits of credulity will be stretched, and there will probably be some completely improbable coincidences that would never happen in reality.
Secondly, the leads in romantic comedies are rarely going to have any real chemistry. Sure, they may have cute/sweet interactions, and may be compelling or charming people in and of themselves (John Cusack is a master at this), but once again, you cannot create true chemistry between two random actors in less than two hours. Of course, some movies come close. John Cusack and Minnie Driver have decent chemistry in "Grosse Pointe Blank." But it's rare.
So when I go to see a romantic comedy, I expect to see good, witty dialogue. I want to be inspired to laugh -- to really laugh -- often. I want dialogue that seems authentic; that sounds like something people might actually say in real life. But at the same time, I want it to be smart and sharp (ie sarcasm is greatly appreciated).
On that count, I think "Must Love Dogs" does very well. Maybe I watch too much TV and movies and have a skewed view of what my world is like, or maybe I have unusually funny friends. But the dialogue I was hearing seemed like what I would hear when hanging out with my friends. Rough, quick, funny, and often a little bitter. From that standpoint, I found the movie not only funny, but also believable.
That said, the plot is terrible, even for a romantic comedy. It looks like either they had a rough edit that was four hours long and had to cut it down at the expense of character development and establishment of a basic, sensible plot, or they wrote the first 80 minutes and then realized that they needed to finish this film up somehow, and fast. But flaws aside, it's a solid movie, and well worth seeing. But I'd advise waiting for video rather than paying $10 to see it in the theater.
When I walked up, I was surprised to see that there was a premier at the theater. It was for "The Constant Gardner," directed by Fernando Meirelles (who broke out with "City of God" a couple years ago). From the preview we saw before our movie, it looks to be a highly depressing movie about genocide in Africa, or something along that line. Anyway, Ralph Fiennes, the star of the movie, was walking the red carpet and being interviewed by random people. Of course, I would have had no idea who he was except that a lot of people were taking his picture. It was cool to see the red carpet and all the crazy entertainment press though.
The movie itself was solid, in my opinion. Of course, it has just been trashed by critics and many viewers. I disagreed, and thought that it was a perfectly fine movie in the genre.
Today, I figured out why I thought the movie was good when so many people thought it was terrible.
From my perspective, romantic comedies are never going to have a decent plot. It is just a limitation of the genre. There is virtually no way to present a believable story of two people falling madly in love in 90 to 120 minutes. The only movies that come close are ones like "When Harry Met Sally," which cover a number of years. But in general, I don't watch a romantic comedy expecting to see a story that I would believe. I assume that the limits of credulity will be stretched, and there will probably be some completely improbable coincidences that would never happen in reality.
Secondly, the leads in romantic comedies are rarely going to have any real chemistry. Sure, they may have cute/sweet interactions, and may be compelling or charming people in and of themselves (John Cusack is a master at this), but once again, you cannot create true chemistry between two random actors in less than two hours. Of course, some movies come close. John Cusack and Minnie Driver have decent chemistry in "Grosse Pointe Blank." But it's rare.
So when I go to see a romantic comedy, I expect to see good, witty dialogue. I want to be inspired to laugh -- to really laugh -- often. I want dialogue that seems authentic; that sounds like something people might actually say in real life. But at the same time, I want it to be smart and sharp (ie sarcasm is greatly appreciated).
On that count, I think "Must Love Dogs" does very well. Maybe I watch too much TV and movies and have a skewed view of what my world is like, or maybe I have unusually funny friends. But the dialogue I was hearing seemed like what I would hear when hanging out with my friends. Rough, quick, funny, and often a little bitter. From that standpoint, I found the movie not only funny, but also believable.
That said, the plot is terrible, even for a romantic comedy. It looks like either they had a rough edit that was four hours long and had to cut it down at the expense of character development and establishment of a basic, sensible plot, or they wrote the first 80 minutes and then realized that they needed to finish this film up somehow, and fast. But flaws aside, it's a solid movie, and well worth seeing. But I'd advise waiting for video rather than paying $10 to see it in the theater.
posted by N at 2:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home