Aquí en la Tierra

Films like this are one of the many things that give Hollywood its bad reputation among independent creative artists. Being at the advanced age of twenty-four and already having had two girlfriends (okay, one girlfriend and one exceptionally good female friend) die on me, I turned the DVD off feeling insulted. Mr. Cranky's review of the film says it all, but I thought I would offer some of my own personal commentary just to embellish the point.

Ever heard the saying "convert ****holes who, having accepted Jesus into their hearts, remain ****holes"? Well, this film is a living example of it. I had as much sympathy for the characters in this film as I would have for a baked potato, and that did not change one iota by the end. The dead mother plot device might have done it for me - quite frankly, I would be very indifferent if my mother died, especially if she had done so when I was about ten years younger. Plot points follow this paragraph, by the way, but you might save yourself a lot of boredom if you just read them.

The manner in which we are supposed to feel sympathy for Leelee Cantactworthadamn's character is simple. The writers and director decide to give her cancer. Apparently, she has broken her knee playing sports before, and the doctors tell her crying family that the possibility of a tumour growing in her leg as a result was "always a possibility". What the f***? Having had a cancer dug out of my face myself, resulting in similar disfigurement to what Cybill Shepherd is reputedly going through at the moment, I find this plot device even more insulting now than I did when I saw the film. I will not feel sympathy for a cardboard cut-out if she dies of cancer, and I will want to kill her myself if she is afflicted with cancer via such a lousy, insulting, and just plain inconsistent with the facts setup as this. Hell, her family must belong to the HMO from Hades if cancer as the result of a knee injury was "always a possibility", and yet it spreads throughout her body so far it cannot be rectified before anyone even notices!

Of course, another source of eternal amusement is the contribution of music by Tori Amos, a woman who still apparently wishes she was more unusual than the chew-toys in breakfast cereals. I'd love to see the look on her face after being played some of the record collection I've put together after years of living in circumstances that would make the writers of this film shudder in terror. Which brings me to another point - when the hell is Hollywood going to stop insulting us with these pseudo-alternative films and present us with something truly exceptional again? One could could the current Lord Of The Rings trilogy, but that is only exceptional because of good source material and a quirky director. Hell On Earth, by comparison, seems geared to prove that Hollywood is only geared towards a very narrow, rigid demographic.

In case I haven't impressed upon you how bad this trash is, let me close by just saying that this film's entire plot was done a billion times better in about twenty minutes of Groundhog Day.

Plot

A rich college kid is taught a lesson after a joy ride ends up destroying a country restaurant.

Cast

A stellar cast featuring Chris Klein, Josh Hartnett, Josh Hartnett, Michael Rooker, Bruce Greenwood and Annette O'Toole even though she's offensively underused here.

Verdict

The movie starts relatively well, sure the characters come off as obnoxious but the fantastic 90's rock soundtrack really sets the tone and the film had my attention. Sadly that's the only time it had my attention for a good reason, I had a chip on my shoulder for the entire film because of the themes.

Without spoilers the core theme is girl loves boy, boy loves girl bad boy who is a horrible character with no redeeming features and is presented as an arrogant tool throughout comes along, girl cheats on boy with dirtbag and that's actually a love story. You think that's the setup for a story of forgiveness and redemption? Nope, that is the story.

Who is this for? A love triangle featuring two scumbags and the victim caught in it all. The film actually made me angry that this is not only the way it played out but also that this was presented as love and romance. One reviewer's title is talking about when you find love you need to hold onto it, whereas this film is about the literal opposite.

Disgusting film, I have no idea what they were thinking when they made this.

Rants

Who has been cheated on here? Raise your hand. I'm betting if you're reading this you have been. Do you think your ex (Hopefully you had the good sense to walk away) could be constituted as a the good guy in that story? No, cheaters are scum in every sense of the word. Don't want to be with someone? Don't be with them, but don't break their heart and don't make movies where the heartbreaker is made out to be a good person and the theme to be about "Love".

Breakdown

Great soundtrack Solid cast Awful premise Dreadful characters.

This film is a genuine five-hanky tearjerker that slathers on the schmaltz thick as marmalade. The story begins with a rivalry between a group of prep school boys and local townies that have a reckless car race that ends up burning down a local diner and gas station. The judge sentences the two drivers to a summer of community service rebuilding the diner. Kelley (Chris Klein) is a spoiled rich boy with attitude. Jasper (Josh Hartnett) is a local hick with a good heart and a bad temper. Needless to say, the two boys hate each other. To complicate matters, Jasper's girlfriend Samantha (Leelee Sobieski) is developing a serious case of the hots for Kelley. They begin an affair complete with dewy looks, running through fields, stolen glances and every other schmaltzy film technique ever invented.

The prep/townie rivalry escalates into a love triangle with all the foreseeable showdowns and confrontations. Just when everyone is working themselves into a good lather it is discovered that Samantha is seriously ill. Pass the Kleenex.

The film has some very sweet moments but the story is far too formulaic and predictable. It has the feel of a TV movie, which is not surprising since director Mark Piznarski has mostly TV projects on his resume. To his credit, the cinematography was beautiful and his choice of locations was superb. The overlook scenes were particularly lovely.

Chris Klein gave an adequate performance, but was not very dynamic and a little stiff. I felt that he was much better in `American Pie' playing a more sincere character. He seems like too nice a guy to play this spoiled and arrogant rich kid. Leelee Sobieski was a good choice for Samantha. She comes across as very vulnerable and sweet. She was adept at capturing the delicate teenage balance between tentativeness and determination. I actually liked Josh Hartnett better than I did Klein. Perhaps he was better suited for his character, but he seemed a lot more believable as Jasper.

This is a great chick flick. It is sentimental, romantic, endearing and sad. Guys are likely to spend most of the movie writhing in their seats. Unfortunately, it wasn't very original and suffered from too many clichés. I rated it a 6/10. Add one or two points if you like sentimental romances and another if you like a movie that makes you cry. A good film for girls' night out.

*MILD SPOILERS* - Hey, you know how there's always that one guy in every Nicolas Sparks movie (usually rich and spoiled) who makes a crude remark about the hero's girlfriend and then gets punched out in a public place (usually a wedding reception or a party)? Well, if you've ever wanted to see HIS story, this is the movie for you! Even though this came out 2 years BEFORE A Walk to Remember, it came out a year after the book - I don't know if someone at 20th Century Fox ordered some writers "hey - make a movie kinda like this book NOW!", but what I do know is this movie sticks closer to the Sparks formula even moreso than AWTR! Besides Sparks standards like a small town, disapproving parents, class issues, disease, and death, this one throws in future Sparks tropes that were missing - love scene in the rain, multiple montages of people building or renovating something (usually a boat, tractor or a house; here a diner), a love triangle with a "nice guy", and a PG-13, shot from the shoulders-up sex scene - they're all here. All we're missing is handwritten letters in a box and a North Carolina coastal setting and this would actually be the ultimate Sparks movie. I wonder if he consciously or subconsciously borrowed a bunch from this movie - a true Who Made Who? situation.

But is it any good? It's entertaining and watchable, but it's also head-scratchingly wrongheaded in concept or execution. The main character is arrogant, he's sleazy, he's ungrateful, he makes fun of poor people - it seems like they're setting up some kind of redemption story, but then they forgot to film the redemption parts! He's just as big an a-hole at the end as he was at the beginning, and we're supposed to root for him for some reason as he steals another guy's girlfriend, then treats her like crap, then leaves and disses the entire town, then comes back like nothing happened. It might make some sense if Chris Klein showed any of his aw-shucks, goofy persona (from Election and American Pie, etc...) but he's simultaneously unlikable and uninteresting here, not to mention he bears a striking resemblance to mass murderer Elliot Rodger. I mean, look at his smug look on the cover, you're about to get a whole movie of that. This is the first Chris Klein movie where I don't want to hang out with his character (and yes this includes Street Fighter).

Why are we supposed to cheer on Leelee Sobieski as she cheats on her boyfriend with this guy? They have zero chemistry and they never portray her boyfriend as anything less than a good guy, and I'd argue more women would choose Josh Hartnett over Chris Klein- it's mind-boggling that we're supposed to sympathize with her as she makes out with Klein RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER BOYFRIEND'S BEST FRIEND and he's supposed to be the bad guy for ratting them out? As a Paul Verhoeven-esque satire of the tragic romance genre, this kinda works, but viewed straight it's kind of unbelievable that they released this movie without major reshoots or re-writes.

Here on Earth is an absolutely awful romance-wannabe. The characters are merely cookie cutter at best: the young, doomed girl whom is torn between her love of the past and the breath of fresh air sweeping through the sleepy town; Kelley, the poor/rich boy who learns a life lesson and of course Jasper: the jilted lover. Of these three I found Jasper to be the most interesting simply because he shows more than two emotions throughout the entire film.

The "romance" (and I use that term loosely) between Kelley and Sam is missing. There is not enough development of these two as characters for me to care about their "budding relationship". And what was that scene between them under the tree with the states? AWFUL! Boo! Hiss!

Chris Klein is way too sensitive in this movie and Leelee Sobieski's movements are very awkward--in fact it is painful to watch her. (Think back to the scene in the kitchen with her "dancing" around) Josh Hartnett redeems the movie a bit with a character that actually has more than one layer. Just skip the movie altogether and save yourself from this dud.