ladyinterference

Here's a clue on how to watch this movie: If you're looking to be disappointed based on any inconsistencies, pay closer attention to the movie. The so-called "inconsistencies" are actually based on a series of events that combine to actually change many of the things you end up seeing happening early on in the movie. Remember: The events that you see happening on the screen aren't happening linearly. The calendar hops all over the place throughout the movie, so it is possible for events that transpire one day to effect what ends up happening in future days. There are two days that are especially noteworthy in terms of what would change the events of the future and they happen toward the end of the movie. Think of how these events will affect the other events that happen in the future and remember that as you see what happens at the end of the movie.

I think the reason this movie hasn't been garnering a lot of critical praise is because movie critics don't really want to have to utilize logic while watching a movie. Another poorly reviewed film starring Sandra Bullock, the truly brilliant The Lake House, was an even bigger victim of movie critics' pathetically anemic logic processing skills. In watching both movies, you really have to keep your faculties alert and not lull yourself into a sense of "okay, I can just turn my brain off now." And really, even though this movie isn't as good as The Lake House, it is equally blessed with the beautiful, talented Ms. Bullock, on top of featuring the beautiful, talented Nia Long, the totally likable Julian McMahon, and some very good acting by the child actors. And the film is very beautiful to look at, too; I now understand why Bullock was raving about the cinematography and direction.

So please do see this movie and don't be dissuaded by the negative remarks. You really do have to pay attention to this film in order to enjoy it, but once you do pay attention, you will be richly rewarded. I'm glad I went to see it and so should you.

I want to cry every time I think of the money and time wasted on this most horrible of all excuses for films. My only hope is that maybe it will garner more than a few Razzie nominations and wins. It was that bad.

First off, the only person whom I felt could do better in the whole shambolic mess was Piper Perabo. Perhaps if she had been cast as the central character in this movie she could have been its saving grace, but instead this vibrant and lively young actress was relegated to the background in favor of -- wait, why is Mandy Moore famous in the first place? For singing? From what I heard in the movie, her vocals are so anemic they make Jessica Simpson sound soulful. For her looks? She's pretty, but in a generic, forgettable way. Halfway through the movie I thought I was seeing Katie Holmes instead.

But Holmes would have looked dubious throughout the movie. Moore hasn't the acting experience or knowhow to do such a thing and so instead she attacked the role with an over-emotive, wholly unbelievable gusto which reminded me of what I would see in any high school dramatic production. She was by no means alone in being cringe-worthy, though. Diane Keaton, who used to shine with every role she played, was completely embarrassing in this mess in perhaps the most hysterical cinematic performance ever captured on film. Lauren Graham was just... there. Not a real thrill to witness, though part of me sensed that perhaps she was trying to hold back some. The other characters in the movie either faded too much into the background or (in the case of the young boy) annoyed to the point of creating a headache, though that could've been due to the writing and direction.

OH GOD, THE WRITING. The writing was -- I've seen better writing from eighth grade "poets". Cliché after cliché followed the most OTT, unrealistic dialogue ever written. This contributed heavily to the unbelievability problem this movie suffered greatly from. Parents do not talk to their children the way this film portrayed, nor do children freely talk about that which the daughters in this flick talked to their mother about. I simply could not believe that anyone was getting away with what they were saying, nor could I believe that what people were saying was what they actually were saying.

The way that virtually all of the non-starring cast was written was in a manner that painted the broadest of strokes. They were portrayed as caricatures, as stereotypes, as mere conveyances for the paper-thin plot to use to move forth. So many types of people have the potential to be hurt by their portrayals in a notable sequence that I won't be surprised if at least one of them institutes legal action against the makers of this film. But then again a judge who views the film might throw the case out on the basis that NO ONE is portrayed in any sort of real, human way. No one's character experiences any sort of transformation, nor are any of them at least as two-dimensional as some of the better animated films being made today.

Now, I come from a lengthy history of viewing romantic comedies. I liked the Meg Ryan vehicle I.Q. I even have fond memories of Must Love Dogs, which in spite of its hysterically OTT dialogue and general depth problems at least had a cast full of people who were really acting their hearts out. You still rooted for Diane Lane's character and everyone was generally likable. And I can find the entertainment value in some movies that are generally regarded as not so good. I thought Big Momma's House II was surprisingly decent fun that was less predictable in certain areas than I thought it'd be. But Because I Said So? This stinker of a movie left no such rewards, and that is depressing. I wonder if I can still ask for my money back.

If you're looking for an intellectual comedy or even something with some actual substance to it, this is not the movie to go to. It is the type of movie you go to, to turn off your brain and just take in some escapist entertainment. It does the job decently, better than most of the other light comedies out there. But what really surprises is how relatively few stupid moments come throughout the movie. A lesser-quality movie would have gone for the easy jokes about dorky white people vs. smooth black people. A lesser flick would have had some of the characters be less perceptive and observant than they actually ended up turning out to be. Poorer-quality fare would have turned this movie into something approaching blaxploitation, where all parties involved ended up humiliated by the experience.

This didn't do any of the aforementioned. Certain characters who could have been written as dumber were actually written as credibly perceptive. Certain scenarios that could have been played out as ridiculous ended up being plausible. There was less of a black/white good vs. evil conundrum going on in this movie, and the suspense involved actually seemed worth it instead of just being suspense for suspense's sake. I don't think there was one moment in the whole film where I was rolling my eyes going, "OH COME ON," the way I was throughout the last film I was obliged to go see, this year's remake of Last Holiday.

Had the premise been more original, had the comedy been more sharply written, more intelligent, I would have been inclined to give this comedy ten stars. It really is one of the better commercial movies to be released in Hollywood over the last five years. It even manages to be better than its predecessor. However, the comedy was actually quite dull, pedestrian, uninvolved, and unintellectual, which means it earns six stars out of ten. Just barely passable, but a heck of a lot better than its contemporaries.