Un été sur terre

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.

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.

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.

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.