newonpluto

"Riding in Cars with Boys" is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen. Not so much because of the subject matter, but more because of how the subject matter is so mismatched with the way that it is handled. There are times of goofiness and humor in this film when they simply do not belong, and the main character is trying to be passed off as likeable and sweet when she is anything but the two. Point blank: Penny Marshall was the absolute wrong choice to direct this film.

I say this not because she is not a good director; but "A League of Their Own" this film is not. I watched this movie expecting a sweet Drew Barrymore vehicle in which she shows off a few acting chops. I got what I expected...and a whole heck of a lot more. The film deals with so many issues, it can't possibly contain all of them in less than two hours effectively. First of all, teen pregnancy. Second, religious parents who believe children should not be born out of wedlock, which leads to teen marriage. Third, teen motherhood. And fourth, and most important, the effects of treating children from the day they were born like they were a mistake.

I could name scene after scene that true feeling and emotion was substituted for either sentimentality or a dim joke. From the moment Jason is born, Barrymore's character, Beverly, is disappointed. But they try to make it light by her disappointment in the fact that she had a boy, not a girl. She pouts and whines and we are supposed to laugh. Uh, yeah, not funny.

This bothered me very much. The character of Bev was a horrible human being. Yes, I feel bad for her throughout the movie. She was smart and had a huge chance at a good life, but look what riding in cars with boys got her – a kid. So while I felt bad for Beverly, I felt worse for Jason, her son who lived his life trying to achieve the most impossible of goals: making his mother proud.

And Steve Zahn worked well enough with what was given him, but I am convinced that if a director more suited to this film helmed it then Zahn would have been nominated for an Oscar. But his character is such a contrived jerk, that is all we see him as. And his final scene could have been one of the most touching, poignant moments in movie history, but instead we get this cheesy, rushed, anti-climactic scene that serves more as a platform for Rosie Perez to yell a lot.

In the end, I cannot see if Beverly has changed. I cannot see that she has become a better person. The film was okay, and Drew Barrymore's performance was fine, considering how the movie turned out. But it could have been better. The acting, the directing, the story, the emotion, the handling of such delicate and important issues, everything about this movie… it all could have been so much better.

"The Blair Witch Project" plays like an experimental film and thereby transcends the horror/suspense genre by being so different. Alas it was ruined by the extreme hype it received. Not all reviews were very favorable in the first place, but the overhype was generated from the belief early on in the film's limited release that what we were watching was real footage shot by three people who were actually missing.

It's too bad. Think about all you have heard after its major release. "It wasn't THAT scary" and "I got motion-sickness" were the two most common remarks I heard, next to "It was the stupidest movie I have ever seen." Why? The first remark is in response to the people who saw it early on and believed it to be the scariest film they had ever seen, causing higher expectations. The second comes from people who sat too close, and the third from people who expected a LOT more than psychological trauma as the true subject of a horror film.

Did they want gut-spilling? Explosions? The supernatural depicted through cheesy special effects, as seen in a movie like "The Haunting?" Please. "The Blair Witch Project" was an exercise in realism, using psychological terror (not what you see, but what you don't see) as its weapon, and it IS one of the scariest films ever made. I saw it in the theatre, still believing that what was onscreen was possibly real. Throughout the film, I was afraid and emotionally horrified, and by the end I was curled up on my seat into a ball, shivering and teary-eyed. That's how powerful it was.

Ignore the hype. Of course, by now it has died down, so folks may not even remember what a big deal the movie was at the time of its release. I only wish the sequel was handled differently. While it was spooky at certain points, its lack of realism (and real acting) had nowhere near the impact of the first. Speaking of the acting...the performances of the three stars of this film truly added to us believing it was real, and therefore are worth the price of a rental alone.

Usually, I like Jon Favreau. I love Famke Janssen. Vince Vaughn has his moments. All of them were just drowned in this mess of a movie. I saw it in the theatre, and I don't think I can ever watch it again. Exactly what was supposed to be so funny? My friends all yell at me for being a movie-lover and still not having seen "Swingers." Watching this film has only made me more skeptical, and I don't think I want to see it anymore.

I laughed sometimes. The opening boxing match was very funny. The very end was also funny, in the kids' place. But for what? To watch the rest of it? To watch Peter Falk look bored to death and bore me while he was at it? To watch Famke Janssen do Favreau a favor by looking like krap and playing a disgusting role? And worst of all, to watch Favreau and Vaughn work through the most pretentious dialogue I have ever heard?

Much of it was not even dialogue. Most of it was Favreau trying really hard to look annoyed (but, of course, still appreciative of his best friend, waaahhh) while Vaughn spouted the most unfunny, irritating, obnoxious lines possibly ever written. At several points of the film, I had to turn to my friend and say "I'm not sure if I can stand this much longer." But I believe I should give every film a chance till the end. I mean I paid for it, didn't I?

And really, the end was very sweet and funny. If the rest of the film had this touch of sweetness to it, it may have worked. But all the coincidences, and the scenes in the Vegas nightclub, and the morning after...So many needless plot developments just to keep us guessing at how much more "clever" they can get. I'm very disappointed in both Favreau and Vaughn. Did they really think people would be that entertained by improv scenes based on being completely annoying? Annoying does not mean clever. But I guess I shouldn't expect much from a guy who thought "Very Bad Things" would be a good idea. (Annoying AND disgusting don't mean clever, either).

Sorry, Favreau. You're usually great, loved you in "Love & Sex," but you messed up with this one. Come back with something that doesn't make it so obvious how cool you're trying to be, sound, or act. Maybe then I'll give Swingers a chance.