Aquí en la Tierra

..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience.

Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).

They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..

Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it.

Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on.

The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.

*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.

I just finished watching this movie for the first time (and last time) last night because after seeing a commercial for Hollywood Homicide, I was in the mood for a Josh Hartnett movie. I should've watched Pearl Harbor, at least I knew the characters in that movie. Josh Hartnett was the only good thing about this movie, but even he was not enough to save it.

Yes this movie follows the typical teen love triangle where the problem is solved only because someone is sick. But I think that the biggest problem with this movie was that the characters were so undeveloped. If I had not read the back of the video box before watching the movie, I probably would not have even known what the character's names were. The only character that I could even connect to was Hartnett's Jasper. Other than that I just watched Kline and Sobieski hold the same facial expressions and speak in the same tone the entire movie. (If your tv is anything like mine, you're going to need to have the volume up as high as it can go if you want to decently hear the dialogue).

I think that the plot upset me the most though about the film. I like Hartnett's character from the start, probably because I was only watching the movie for him. And Kline's character grew on me as I saw him change into a better person, plus the scene with the cows cracked me up. But Sobieski's character made me so upset that I was wishing she'd die because she was just hurting the two boys. Hartnett did nothing wrong to her and yet she cheated on him with a boy she didn't even know (he must've been a good kisser). So you like the new boy in town, at least have the class and decency to break up with your boyfriend before you start making out, geography style, in the grass.

I would give this movie a 1, but I think that Josh Hartnett, and the cows, saved it from that rating so I'm giving it a 2/10.

This film's setup is OK: rich kid's probation is helping rebuild the restaurant his irresponsible behavior burns down. And I liked the female lead, Lee Sobieski. At various points, she reminded me of Helen Hunt, of Laura Linney, and even of Jodie Foster. But somebody in the small town would have told the rich kid that she was a cancer patient, so the big revelation scene never would have happened. Too bad, but the whole film turned out to be a Love Story knock-off.

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.