Un disastro di ragazza

All the critics seem to be male, which I find interesting.

Here's a female point of view.

Maybe not all females have been in the protagonist's shoes, but it is very common for women to have problems with monogamy, just like men. Showing a woman who treats men the way most men treat women is not only realistic, but eye-opening. I think that's the problem most men have with the movie. No one wants to see the shoe on the other foot--it's uncomfortable, but guess what? It's reality.

I thought the movie was funny and touching. LeBron James is hilarious as himself.

For whoever says there is no real strong story-line? They obviously missed it. It's about maturing, about figuring out what a person's priorities are in life. It's about the realization that compensation isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Firstly, I am not a fan of Schumer but the supporting cast, cameos and Judd Apatow's typical treatment of a RomCom makes this a reasonable outing and worthwhile.

Bill Hader was underrated as usual and Tilda Swinton played an atypical role for her which I found amusing due to this fact. Although I enjoyed this film despite being a little cliche, but I don't think I will ever make an effort to see "I Feel Pretty".

This movie is like a lot of similar type of movies; meaning movies that aims to challenge preconceived notions of "what a lady should and should't be like". It quickly becomes banal, predictable and irritating. There's no depth of character here, because you sort of get the gist of the jokes before they're halfway delivered. Having said that; these kinds of movies can and have been saved by good performances. Unfortunately Amy Schumer doesn't deliver that. I don't know why scriptwriters and directors hit the same creative pitfalls every time a movie like this is to be made. We get it: here's an urban girl with a modern outlook on life who does what she wants, sleeps with whom she wants and doesn't apologize for it, etc etc.. good, but then what? A movie needs more than just a cliché of a character, predictable jokes and bad acting.

Trainwreck is a pretty good comedy film but it's not as great as everyone says it is. Some people believe it's the funniest film of all time and some think it's the best comedy of this decade so far but I would have to disagree with them. The film is funny but it's not gut busting laughing. The laughs are more of a chuckle. The acting is great everyone played their part very well. Amy Schumer wrote this film and I think she did a great job for writing this film. The chemistry between her and Bill Hader is great. Also this is probably Judd Apatow's best film since 40 Year Old Virgin. The film is more of a chick flick but there are some chick flicks that I thought were funnier than this film like Bridesmaids. Also this could be a great date film for couples. I do find this film way over-hyped and probably one of the most overrated films so far this year. Overall if your a fan of Amy Schumer or Judd Apatow then you'll enjoy this film.

There are some makers who although talented in a specific way, move into a space that simply shows their talent to be little. Alexander Payne for example could be making stylized comedies with no problem, but as soon as he moves into elegy and meaning, it all becomes a sophomoric play. We've known Malick in that field and Payne is like a film school grad next to him.

So it would seem Apatow has an effervescent personality, at least enough to want to move out from his comfort zone. He could be cranking penis joke comedies till the cows come home but wants to move into more somber reflection about the pains of life. He has tried this a few times by now.

Here he tries a few switches. A movie about the usual slob who never grew out of adolescence but she's a girl. Men are almost entirely immature or idiots, and for some reason I can't begin to fathom, half of them gay, that is except for the knight in white armor who patiently helps her grow out of herself. He puts them in that New York movie romance where a couple are on and off again and might even think he's turning Woody Allen upside down. Indicative; the familiar romantic scene on a bench looking over at Brooklyn Bridge ends with a blowjob.

None of it sticks after a point and it's off-putting to think he might be thinking of any of this as transgressive. So he has moved out from the familiar safety of what he can do well, into a space that shows him to have trivial insights and odd hangups, from primarily a comedy about life where laughter sanctifies reductions, to primarily a drama about life where muttering dialogue and stereotypes rattle in the nothingness of not having anything to impart. He moves, even if ever so slightly, into territory that Woody, Bergman, and Altman have occupied. But in this space he's shown to be a dunderhead.