Category Archives: Romantic Comedy

What’s Up, Doc? -1972

What’s Up, Doc? -1972

Director Peter Bogdanovich

Starring Barbra Streisand, Ryan O’Neal 

Scott’s Review #1,162

Reviewed July 20, 2021

Grade: B+

Careful trepidation is advised for filmmakers venturing into humorous or slapstick comedy waters, especially if they are better known for dramatic films.

Since we’re talking 1970s cinema here, there is only one Mel Brooks, and plenty of films with physical humor and gags fail miserably.

What’s Up, Doc? (1972) is not one of them and is a refreshing success.

Brooks’s influence can easily be seen throughout the film, and this is no surprise. Before doing any post-film research, I was immediately reminded of the popular television sitcom Get Smart, which ran from 1965 to 1970.

Buck Henry, a frequent Brooks collaborator, co-created Get Smart and wrote the screenplay for What’s Up Doc?

The antics and comedic moments scream Brooks. If one is unfamiliar, it is like watching a Mel Brooks film.

Director Peter Bogdanovich, most notably known for the 1971 masterpiece The Last Picture Show, changes course, opting for comedy with lots of screwball situations and physical comedy that are completely different from his previous work.

Speaking of Brooks, Madeline Kahn, a mainstay of his films, appears as a particularly neurotic character named Eunice Burns. It is her first film role.

I must say I was thoroughly impressed by What’s Up, Doc?, which oddly pairs two Hollywood superstars of the time, Barbra Streisand and Ryan O’Neal.

One might be surprised to think of the duo as romantic partners, and the chemistry comes and goes throughout the film, but the antics and quick dialogue are joyous and timed perfectly between the actors.

What’s Up, Doc? intends to pay homage to comedy films of the 1930s and 1940s, especially popular Warner Bros. Bugs Bunny cartoons, hence the title, but the reference doesn’t appear until the final scene.

This caused me to ponder why the specific title was used.

The premise goes something like this. Doctor Howard Bannister (O’Neal) arrives in San Francisco to compete for a research grant in music. He is accompanied by his overbearing wife, Eunice (Khan).

Already nervous and on edge because of Eunice, he meets a strange yet charming woman named Judy Maxwell, played by Streisand, at the drugstore. They are drawn to each other yet are not sure why. She both annoys and fascinates him.

In a subplot, a woman has her jewels stolen, and a government whistleblower arrives with his stolen top-secret papers. Ironically, all the players have identical red plaid bags and stay in neighboring hotel rooms, adding to the confusion and hilarity.

My favorite moments are the screwball scenes. Especially memorable are the hilarious sequences that take place in and around the hotel guest rooms as a constant in-and-out of parallel rooms unfolds. Each character has a particular motivation as they sneak around the hallways and rooms.

It is delightful fun.

When I realized that Streisand and O’Neal were the romantic leads, I was skeptical at first, but their chemistry is not bad. They are not the sort of couple that he and Ali MacGraw were in Love Story (1970), and certainly have no heavy drama to play, but they play comedy off of each other well.

The film makes a joke about the film Love Story.

Unfamiliar to me, I am glad I took the chance and watched What’s Up Doc? (1972). The film provides laughs, entertainment, and good chemistry among the cast who know how to deliver rapturous humor with perfect timing.

Rated G, the film can be enjoyed by the entire family as there is not a double entendre or otherwise offensive moment to be found—just good, old-fashioned humor. I would argue that the film influenced the 1970s as much as it paid homage to earlier comedy films.

I would see it again.

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen-2011

Director Lasse Hallstrom

Starring Ewing McGregor, Emily Blunt

Scott’s Review #1,152

Reviewed June 15, 2021

Grade: B-

Despite exceptional chemistry between leads Ewing McGregor and Emily Blunt, who were also bankable stars in 2011, the romantic comedy Salmon Fishing in The Yemen (2011) is predictable, dull, and lacks a good identity.

It is the feel-good film of the year and that is not meant as a compliment.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s above par as compared to the usual drivel emerging from one of my least favorite genres, the rom-com, but it should offer more than the by-the-numbers plot it churns out.

Someone either felt lazy or was instructed to create a banal film.

With good actors and fabulous locales, I expected more edge from Swedish director, Lass Hallstrom. But, alas, we get something merely adequate.

Doctor Alfred Jones (McGregor) is a fisheries scientist who one day receives an unusual request from a strong businesswoman named Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt). She wants his help in fulfilling a request from a wealthy sheik played by Amr Waked who wants to bring sport fishing to Yemen.

Jones declines at first, but when the British prime minister’s spokeswoman (Kristin Scott Thomas) latches on to the project as a way to improve Middle East relations, he joins in.

Romance blooms as Jones and Harriet work to make the sheik’s dream come true.

If this brief synopsis sounds like it’s taken from a novel that’s because it is and it is as straightforward as you can imagine. The film is based on a 2007 novel which must have been better than the film.

Let’s be fair and clear. McGregor and Blunt are as good as they can be with the material they are given and they succeed in bringing some life to the big screen. The trouble is there isn’t very far to go with their characters. Harriet is a businesswoman with a task at hand. Alfred is a handsome doctor with something she needs. Did I mention he’s a doctor?

Harriet’s romantic interest is hardly a surprise and Hallstrom puts nary any real obstacles in their path towards getting together.

The fact that early in the film Harriet is dating British Special Forces Captain Robert Meyers played by Tom Mison and Alfred is married to a woman named Mary (Rachael Stirling) is laughable after Robert is quickly killed off and Mary is sent away to Geneva for a conference.

Predictably, Alfred and Mary realize their marriage is over.

But wait, there’s more! Robert resurfaces from the dead alive and well. Harriet struggles with her emotions and quickly realizes that her feelings for him have changed leaving her to be with Alfred.

The setup for Harriet and Alfred is as predictable as what peanut butter and jelly sandwiches will taste like.

Poor Kristin Scott Thomas, a fantastic actor is reduced to playing the cliched role of Public Relations Patricia Maxwell. She straightforwardly plays her as aggressive, impatient, and bitchy. The performance doesn’t work well.

Second, to the sweetness of McGregor and Blunt, the locales are thankfully plentiful. Visits to London, Scotland, and Morocco are blessed treats.

A silly subplot of the salmon being removed from British rivers and something about farming goes nowhere and is not worth the effort to go into. Suffice it to say it does little for the film or as a companion to the main plot. The only thing viewers should focus on is Harriet and Alfred’s romantic involvement.

I only recommend Salmon Fishing in The Yemen (2011) for those fans of either McGregor or Blunt or who yearn to escape to a fantasy world with a happily ever after ending.

If one enjoys fishing or fly-fishing (is there a difference?) that may be enough cause to give the film a twirl too.

Otherwise, the film offers nothing that hasn’t been seen countless times before. By the conclusion of the film, I felt weary and bored for so much unchartered potential left on the cutting room floor….or somewhere else.

Emma-2020

Emma-2020

Director Autumn de Wilde

Starring Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn

Scott’s Review #1,128

Reviewed March 31, 2021

Grade: B

I haven’t read the classic Jane Austen novel written in 1815, nor have I seen the 1996 film version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. Neither of these is a prerequisite to enjoying the 2020 version of Emma starring Anya Taylor-Joy in the lead role of Emma Woodhouse.

The film, while set in the early nineteenth century, feels incredibly contemporary and seemingly makes little attempt at a classic style save for the hair, makeup, and costumes.

These items are splendid, and the highlight makes the film stylish and bright.

Beautiful, bright, and rich, Emma (Taylor-Joy) enjoys her matchmaking skills that sometimes lead to awkward or failed matches and romantic missteps. She claims not to be interested in her romance or potential suitors, though that changes with time.

She struggles with the challenges of growing up, despite being pampered and often interfering in others’ affairs. Emma is also mischievous and not always kind, though deep down she is a good person and has regret when she hurts someone’s feelings with her antics.

In a good, coming-of-age way, she finally realizes that love for her and a proper match of her own has been there all along and staring her in the face.

The film begins with Emma’s governess, Miss Taylor (Gemma Whelan), marrying and becoming Mrs. Weston.

She and Emma are best friends, and Emma is saddened, so she settles on Harriet Smith (Mia Goth), a younger girl whom Emma supposes is the unclaimed child of a gentleman; Harriet’s parents are unknown, but her education has been provided for.

They become bonded, and Emma’s influence is immeasurable.

Taylor-Joy does an excellent job in the title role and carefully makes Emma naughty and sometimes unlikable before carefully reeling her in with an act of kindness. She has no malice in mind but is often bored and looking for excitement.

I found myself rooting for her to find romance with Mr. Knightley (Johnny Flynn), which she does, but not without a hurdle or two on the way.

Other characters come and go with flirtations and romantic possibilities explored.

Speaking of Flynn, the actor is rumored to play rock icon David Bowie in a future theatrical feature. A real musician, Flynn, should be the perfect casting for that critical part.

He is the only character to show some flesh, his bare bum, in Emma, and one wonders if female director Autumn de Wilde did this purposefully. After all, traditionally in cinema, it’s been the female who is more commonly nude. Turnabout is fair play.

While Taylor-Joy is good, she is nearly upstaged by the delightful Goth, who is fabulous as the insecure and impressionable Harriet. With humor and innocence, she makes her character quite likable. I’d like to see more from this young actress.

Bill Nighy is perfectly cast as the comical father of Emma, while Miranda Hart as Miss Bates steamrolls over every scene she is in.

Some inconsistencies exist, especially where Miss Bates is concerned. A quick mention that Miss Bates and her family had once been rich and are now struggling is not explored, where it reportedly was in the novel.

Dividing the film into seasonal sections (Autumn, Winter, Spring, and Summer) is a good decision and makes it more like a novel. The winter snow and Christmas festivities, along with a summer picnic, do wonders to add fresh atmospheric tidbits.

The many scenes of delicious spreads of food and drink laid out for hungry eyes to see offer a robust and colorful glimpse of the culture.

The vibrancy, the food, and the clothing, as mentioned above, all brimming with richness based on the seasons, are the main draw. The castles and large houses featured surely small-town English style, brimming with vastness and atmosphere.

Emma (2020) is a fun film, but its story isn’t the strongest aspect. Predictably, all characters wind up with whom they should wind up with, and there is a happily ever after sensibility.

Adolescents can easily sit in comfort with their parents and enjoy the lightweight affair. Nobody will be offended, and all will be satisfied. It’s a solid romantic period piece.

Oscar Nominations: Best Costume Design, Best Makeup & Hairstyling

Tadpole-2002

Tadpole-2002

Director Gary Winick

Starring Aaron Stanford

Scott’s Review #1,125

Reviewed March 23, 2021

Grade: B

Tadpole (2002) is an enjoyable coming-of-age effort that carefully, or too carefully, toes the line between being cute and exploring some morally questionable material.

The film gets away with the naughty subject matter because there exists a wholesomeness that lands somewhere between fresh and a commodity.

It’s a fun romp, but nothing memorable either, borrowing from better films.

Aaron Stanford, the lead actor, makes the film better than it might have been and seamlessly matches wits and comic timing with heavyweight actors like Sigourney Weaver, John Ritter, and Bebe Neuwirth.

He is charming, just like his character, and carries the film.

Oscar Grubman (what a name!) is compassionate and sophisticated, reciting Voltaire and speaking fluent French.

When he arrives home for Thanksgiving weekend, it is revealed that he has a major crush on his stepmother, Eve (Weaver).

She and Oscar’s father, Stanley (Ritter) share a ritzy Manhattan apartment and entertain a girl they think would be perfect for Oscar but he only has eyes for Eve and rebuffs the poor girl.

Despondent at not having a chance with his stepmom but desiring her, Oscar visits a local bar and runs into Eve’s best friend, Diane (Neuwirth).

He gets drunk, and she takes him home, winding up in bed together! Oscar is filled with remorse.

Oscar’s and Diane’s tryst is the caveat for the rest of the antics of the film. Oscar is terrified that Diane will tell his father and Eve, especially as she is on the guest list for dinner the next night!

An amusing game of footsie under the table ensues between Oscar and Diane.

Diane is a Mrs. Robinson-type character to Oscar’s Benjamin if we want to draw comparisons to The Graduate (1967), and how could we not? Eve is like Elaine, Mrs. Robinson’s daughter.

Unsuspecting and slightly naive. It’s fun to reminisce about the classic film that director Gary Winick borrows from.

Speaking of Winick, he has a knack for creating coming-of-age stories featuring teenage characters with light angst, and he commonly releases independent films.

My hunch is that if Tadpole were a big-budget mainstream affair, even more concessions might have been made for the brewing May/December romance.

The “dinner scene” is the best part of Tadpole, providing strong physical comedy and a hilarious setup. It’s a stretch in plausibility and borrows from many slapstick comedies, but somehow the scene works well and stands out.

The subject matter of a woman three times the age of Oscar is not as harsh as it sounds and is largely played for laughs and misunderstandings. This is where the film misses the mark and stays firmly in the safe lane.

Imagine the juicy possibilities that would occur if Eve reciprocated Oscar’s advances. Now that is an interesting concept!

I shudder to think that if Oscar were a fifteen-year-old girl and Eve a forty-something-year-old man, this film would never have been made.

The double standard gnawed at me.

The ending is wholesome and predictable, making the film satisfying for the character yet limiting for the viewer. Oscar more or less “snaps out of it” and realizes that girls his age are okay after all.

I half-wondered whether the film would be revealed to have been all Oscar’s dream.

The cougar-esque subject matter provides light entertainment, never daring to go as far as it could have, or should have.

In the end, we understand a young, pubescent boy’s dreams and desires and may fondly recall when we were his age and all the troublesome sexual feelings that bubbled under the surface.

Tadpole (2002) is a watchable independent comedy with enough to digest, thanks to its worthy cast.

Hairspray-2007

Hairspray-2007

Director Adam Shankman

Starring Nikki Blonsky, John Travolta

Scott’s Review #1,095

Reviewed December 28, 2020

Grade: B+

Hairspray (2007) is a fun film, without being superfluous. The third incarnation of the musical treat doesn’t disappoint, offering a brighter production.

A safer affair than the 1988 escapade directed by naughty filmmaker John Waters, it’s nonetheless not a “watered” version either. It loses none of the charm that the original had and includes plenty of big-name stars.

In short, it’s a solid summer popcorn flick with sing-along tunes and a cool vibe.

The important message of racial relations is not lost nor dismissed.

The setting is early 1960s Baltimore, Maryland, a city rife with racial problems representing the entire United States during that decade.

Our star, Tracy Turnblad (Nikki Blonsky) is a chubby, bubbly, sixteen-year-old, who wants nothing more than to trudge through the school day and come home and indulge in her favorite television show, The Corny Collins Show, a popular local dance competition.

Tracy auditions for a spot on the show and wins.

She became an overnight celebrity, a trendsetter in dance, fun, and fashion. She and her fans hope that her new status as a teen sensation is enough to topple Corny’s reigning dance queen, Amber von Tussle (Brittany Snow), and bring racial integration to the show.

Amber’s racist mother, Velma (Michelle Pfeiffer), runs the television station and thwarts Tracy’s efforts, fueling tension and a dance competition between Tracy and Amber.

The casting is a big part of the success.

Blonsky, making her film debut, carries the film flawlessly. Both energetic and empathetic, she is the perfect girl next door and relatable for any young girl who is not a stick figure.

More broadly, she represents anybody who feels like a misfit or is put upon for not being classified as perfect.

Her joy and sincerity as she sings and dances to “Good Morning, Baltimore” and “I Can Hear the Bells” is infectious and makes her a perfect protagonist.

The supporting cast is delightful and laden with A-list Hollywood stars having a ball with their over-the-top roles.

My favorite is John Travolta as Tracy’s mother and compadre, Edna. Fans of Hairspray know that Edna is always cast with a male actor in drag, and Travolta is fantastic. His mannish body and movements only make the character more fun and fabulous.

And with his beehive hairdo and pink ribbon, he is so darn cute!

Tracy’s father, Wilbur, is played by Christopher Walken. His love for his wife and daughter is sweet. Pfeiffer fuels her one-note character with venom as the racist woman gets her just due.

Director Adam Shankman focuses on the musical numbers, and that’s just fine.

For added pleasure, he includes both John Waters and Rikki Lake (the original Tracy) in cameo roles, which is a treat for anyone who has seen the original.

The best numbers occur when the entire company joins in, especially the wonderful finale, “You Can’t Stop the Beat”. Besides being musically contagious, the song sends an important message of progression and embracing change.

Despite the fluffy trimmings, the important message of racial inequality is not overlooked, nor does it feel dated in the year 2007.

Racism is still an issue. Justifiably so, the racist characters like Velma and Prudence Pingleton (Allison Janney) look ridiculous with outrageous fear for anyone different than themselves.

Tracy and her friends champion causes such as anti-racism, integration, and being true to oneself, which are central themes of the film, along with the merry songs.

While I still prefer the 1988 version of Hairspray for its seedier a colder vibe, Hairspray (2007) is a colorful rendition that exposes a new generation to the chirpy, danceable tunes while maintaining the important themes.

It’s a family-friendly affair and a very funny experience without sacrificing any credibility.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore-1974

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore-1974

Director Martin Scorsese

Starring Ellen Burstyn, Kris Kristofferson, Diane Ladd

Scott’s Review #1,075

Reviewed October 27, 2020

Grade: A-

Deserving of the Best Actress statuette she won for her role, Ellen Burstyn carries the film Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974) from start to finish with drama and comedy.

I can’t watch any performance of Burstyn’s without smarting at how she lost the same award years later, after her frighteningly good performance in Requiem for a Dream, released in 2000.

She was defeated by Julia Roberts, who delivered an adequate, though unexceptional, performance in Erin Brockovich (2000).

But, I digress.

A character study, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, tells the powerful story of a woman (Burstyn) forced to begin a new life and forge her path after her husband is killed in a car accident.

She is thirty-five years old and wary of the approaching middle age as she pursues a singing career. She is joined by her young son, Tommy (Alfred Lutter), and faces fear and loneliness as the pair embarks on a journey throughout the southwestern United States.

She dates, fights, and does a soul search, finally landing a job as a waitress at a roadside diner.

On paper, this film could have been reduced to television movie status, as the premise sounds kind of corny and sentimental.

Shocking to me is that Martin Scorsese directed it. Best known for male-driven mobster pictures like Goodfellas (1993), Gangs of New York (2002), and The Irishman (2019), Martin Scorsese’s introspective female-journey film doesn’t seem like his thing.

A fun fact is that he agreed to direct at Burstyn’s urging, since she wouldn’t have starred otherwise. The actress surmised that the script needed more darkness and grit, which it contains without losing its heart.

A strange yet lovely photographed scene kicks off the picture and seems to be an homage to The Wizard of Oz (1939). With a dusty, golden backdrop, a young Alice looks like Dorothy with an idyllic life.

Suddenly, Alice’s mother bellows her to come home for dinner. She responds with salty language. The scene feels out of place based on the rest of the film, but it looks good.

Burstyn made me care about Alice from the first scene containing adult Alice. Alice is a good person. She is hard-working and strives to please her husband, hoping he will enjoy the delicious dinner she has prepared for him. He barely grunts at the meal and has a tumultuous relationship with Tommy, whom Alice spoils.

This plot point returns later in the film.

Alice is not a doormat; however, she provides humor and comic relief during tense moments. She also shares a warm friendship with her neighbor. We do not know what the husband’s demons are (depression?).

He and Alice share an emotional moment in bed one night before he dies the next day.

With her marriage behind her and limited financial means, Alice and Tommy take to the road. I adore the relationship between the two. Tommy is not always easy to parent, exhausting his mother with typical young adult nonsense.

It’s easy to forget that he has lost his father and has no direction. Their relationship is complicated, but there is much love.

The juiciness comes when Alice finally lands a singing gig at a seedy lounge bar and meets the maniacal Ben, played flawlessly by Harvey Keitel.

At first, he is charming and attentive, wooing her like she’s never been wooed before. When she learns he is married, he turns psycho, and she is forced to leave town.

The meat of the film comes when Alice begins working at the diner and meets her new friend, Flo (Diane Ladd), and her new love, David (Kris Kristofferson). After some trials and tribulations, Alice realizes her life is not so bad.

As much as there are dramatic elements, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore is not a soap opera or overwrought. The scenes and situations bristle with energy and authenticity, thanks to the great acting and fluid direction.

My favorite scenes occur at the diner. With greasy blue-plate specials and dishes piled with ham, eggs, and hash browns, the working-class extras are perfectly positioned around the diner.

In the background, they lend a feeling of rush, chaos, and family traditions. The diner scenes are where Alice bonds the most with Flo and David, and they are delicious.

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974), a lighter, wholesome production, was turned into a popular television sitcom in the late 1970s, titled Alice. It’s a progressive story about a woman on her own, getting it done, and mustering the courage to face whatever life throws at her.

It’s an inspiring story for both women and men.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Ellen Burstyn (won), Best Supporting Actress-Diane Ladd, Best Original Screenplay

Sex Tape-2014

Sex Tape-2014

Director Jake Kasdan

Starring Cameron Diaz, Jason Segel

Scott’s Review #980

Reviewed January 15, 2020

Grade: C

Sex Tape (2014) is a cliched, by-the-numbers, standard romantic comedy that meets expectations, but does little to exceed them.

It is a raunchy affair, perhaps too raunchy for some, and riddled with juvenile moments.

The film contains good chemistry between the leads and is fun up to a point. The final sequence strays too far into dumb, situation comedy-style moments, with too many seen-before stereotypes, that take away most of the preceding fun.

With universally scathing reviews, I expected to hate the film salivating over the opportunity to craft a good, old-fashioned terrible review, but, Sex Tape is marginally fair to middling.

After reuniting again after starring in Bad Teacher (2011), Cameron Diaz and Jason Segel do what they can with the material given, offering strong convictions and fluid moments of enamored charm.

In a supporting role as the boss, Rob Lowe is fine in a stock role, and the child actors are abhorrent (what else is new in romantic comedy casts?)

The film treats the viewer to a brief backstory, narrated by Annie, about the fresh romance between twenty-somethings, Jay and Annie Hargrove (Segel and Diaz).

Much in love, they can barely keep their eyes off each other and have sex at the drop of a hat. Once they settle down and have kids, their romantic interludes must be balanced and scheduled amid bath time, feedings, and the necessity of sleep.

Annie writes a popular blog, expressing the challenges of being a mom, as she bucks for a well-paying job at a company run by Hank Rosenbaum (Lowe).

One day, while feeling naughty, Jay and Annie rapturously and spontaneously decide to record their session of hanky panky on video, to enjoy later.

Predictably, an error occurs, and their lovemaking session is inadvertently synchronized to video to several iPads the couple had given away over time, which is the entire cast.

They struggle to retrieve the iPads and erase their session while being blackmailed by an anonymous viewer.

The strength of Sex Tape is the pairing of Diaz and Segel because without them the film would be nonsense. Chemistry and antics are everything in physical comedy films, and these two have it down.

We accept that the married couple, despite it being ten long years, is still in love with each other, avoiding the doldrums. What they need is a spark and it is fun watching them come up with a sneaky idea.

Even when the film gets bad, the actors are a hoot.

The supporting cast is what one usually gets in a romantic comedy and the wonder is why these characters are always written as a “type” and not better fleshed out.

Examples are Jay and Annie’s best friends, Robby and Tess Thompson (Rob Corddry and Ellie Kemper), one-dimensional and offering merely extensions of the lead characters, with no character development of their own.

The same can be said for Annie’s mother (played by Nancy Lenehan).

The studio’s attempts to promote the latest technological tool, the iPad, to death is strongly evident. If one more iPad appeared on screen I would have screamed. And how is it possible to record yourself in numerous sexual positions with an iPad?

How did they move the iPad and get into those positions? Why did everyone and their brother have an iPad? A weak explanation alluded to Jay’s occupation being somehow responsible.

Sex Tape (2014) does not rewrite the comedy roadmap and will assuredly be forgotten over time- might this film’s bad reviews and the disastrous remake of Annie (2014) be why Diaz retired from acting altogether?

Regardless, for a pleasant Saturday night of silly laughs over a Cosmopolitan or two, this film is okay but for fans of Diaz, watch There’s Something About Mary (1998) instead.

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

With Six You Get Eggroll-1968

Director Howard Morris

Starring Doris Day, Brian Keith

Scott’s Review #931

Reviewed August 15, 2019

Grade: B

A film that influenced the creation of the iconic television series, The Brady Bunch (1969-1974), or the reverse, depending on the timeline or who you ask, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a cute family romantic comedy, hardly exceptional fare.

It becomes too silly during the final act.

The film follows the merging of two families into one big blended family, and its heart is the romance between two middle-aged singles looking for new love despite their baggage.

Abby McClure (Doris Day) is a widow raising three boys somewhere in northern California. She dutifully runs her deceased husband’s lumberyard while feeling unfulfilled in the romance department.

When her overzealous sister, Maxine (Pat Carroll), tricks her into inviting widower Jake Iverson (Brian Keith) to her dinner party, the pair do not connect. Still, they are drawn to one another as they become better acquainted.

Predictable obstacles come their way, including misunderstandings and backlash from their kids.

With Six You Get Eggroll is Day’s last film and certainly not one of her best offerings, but it is nonetheless moderately enjoyable.

The filmmaker intends to showcase a romance between Abby and Jake so that the elements are set up in a way that makes the characters likable, leaving a very predictable experience.

When Jake arrives at the party early and sees Abby at her disheveled worst, or after Jake makes up an excuse to leave the evening early but runs into Abby later at the supermarket, it’s the sort of film that has a happy ending.

As such, the chemistry between Day and Keith is palpable, making the film charming. If they had no chemistry, the film would be a bust, but their slow-burning fondness for each other works well for this genre.

They share a spontaneous evening of champagne and small talk at Abby’s house, and excitedly plan a date for the next day, only for Jake to make an excuse, leaving Abby perplexed.

When Abby sees him with a much younger woman, we feel her disappointment. After all, Abby is well past forty in a world where middle-aged women are not the pick of the litter anymore, as sister Maxine annoyingly reminds her.

When the young woman turns out to be Jake’s daughter, we smile with relief, along with Abby, because we like the characters and want them to be together.

The children: Flip, Jason, Mitch, and Stacey (a young Barbara Hershey) add little to the film and are merely supporting characters. They dutifully add obstacles to their parents’ happiness by squabbling over bathroom space or resenting one parent for taking the other away.

Conversely, Maxine and Abby’s housekeeper, Molly (Alice Ghostley), adds excellent comic relief, keeping the film from turning too melodramatic and providing natural humor.

The Brady Bunch comparisons are pretty apparent to any viewer who has seen the television series, and who hasn’t. The blended families and the G-rated dramatic crises are the most certain, and the period and clothes are almost identical.

Molly the maid could be Alice the housekeeper, and the actor (Allan Melvin) who plays Sam “the Butcher” from the television series appears as a Police Sergeant.

I half-expected the musical scores to mirror each other.

The film has some mild flaws aside from its predictability. The introduction of a band of hippies (though cool to see M*A*S*H alums Jamie Farr and William Christopher in early acting roles) and a speeding chicken truck resulting in arrests is way too juvenile and plot-driven.

A much better title could have been thought up for the film; With Six You Get Eggroll doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue, and it has nothing to do with the story.

Finally, Abby’s masculine profession is only shown in the opening scene and has nothing to do with the story.

For a wholesome late 1960s-themed evening, With Six You Get Eggroll (1968) is a moderate affair with cliches and a cheery tone, but also some genuine chemistry between its leads.

The sets and colors fit the times well, and Day is always top-notch. Perhaps one could skip this film and watch a sampling of The Brady Bunch reruns; the experience would be almost the same.

Do Not Disturb-1965

Do Not Disturb-1965

Director Ralph Levy, George Marshall

Starring Doris Day, Rod Taylor

Scott’s Review #917

Reviewed July 8, 2019

Grade: C+

Singer and actress Doris Day put her stamp on the romantic comedy genre during the 1960s, becoming synonymous with wholesome film characters. She had spunk and charm and always wore sensible shoes.

Do Not Disturb (1965) is a lightweight, forgettable work with a silly premise, a juvenile script, and a meandering plot.

The film is somewhat saved by the interesting locales of London and Kent, England, but those seeking better quality should seek out the gems The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) and Pillow Talk (1959).

Day and Rod Taylor star as Janet and Mike Harper, an American couple who relocate to England as part of a transfer for the company he works for. They immediately disagree over where to live; Mike prefers the excitement of London, but Janet favors the rustic quality of Kent.

After she gets them a house thirty miles outside London, the plan backfires when the couple grows further apart due to Mike’s need to commute to London every day. Lonesome and isolated, Janet worries incessantly that Mike is having an affair with his new secretary, Claire Hackett (Maureen McGivney).

Prompted by her busybody landlord, Vanessa Courtwright (Hermione Baddeley), Janet meets an Italian antique dealer, Paul Bellari (Sergio Fantoni), who she hires to redecorate her house. The antics begin with Mike spending more time with Claire, Janet, and Paul in equally close quarters.

Janet and Mike may be innocent, but Paul and Claire could have designs on their potential mates, especially as the foursome faces one compromising situation after another.

The heart of an authentic romantic comedy is good, old-fashioned chemistry between the leads, and Taylor and Day exhibit adequate sparkle but hardly sizzle.

Mediocrity in the setup and writing can be forgiven if other elements, like crackling moments, exist, but those are rare in Do Not Disturb.

Some Like It Hot (1959) embodies a great comedy with romantic wrappings featuring fantastic leads Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe. Still, the former does not come close to finding its footing amid cliche after cliche.

The film is plot-driven and heavy on story-dictated situations rather than character development. The ending is predictable. The jokes fall flat or feel distinctly canned and cheap, and the laughs never catch on.

During a tepid sequence, Janet and Paul visit a remote town to look at antiques. She ends up drinking too much bubbly and becomes drunk and foolhardy.

What should have been comic relief does little to further the plot or flesh out the characters.

Director Ralph Levy makes little effort to steer the film beyond a slick mainstream “affair” despite the release year being 1965 when more edgy works replaced the polished and familiar.

Rather than dare to go to a less-than-cheery place and perhaps decide to have Janet or Mike cheat on their significant others, Levy chooses not to go there, instead attempting to satisfy those seeking a happily-ever-after wrapping.

Not to be entirely negative, Do Not Disturb features remarkable and stunning locale sequences of bustling metropolitan London, quaint English cottages, and wilderness, oozing with culture and sophistication as well as down-home comforts and rich flavor.

The combination of an American couple thrust into a different setting with a new set of rules and regulations to follow makes the film fun and offers a sprinkle of good scenery.

Do Not Disturb (1965) is a mid-1960s mainstream release buried among nests of other similar-themed but better-written films. Even appealing and bankable stars of the time like Taylor and Day could not succeed in spicing up tired gimmicks and plot devices.

The film will forever be relegated to the romantic comedy shelves, teetering on the brink of obscurity.

Pillow Talk-1959

Pillow Talk-1959

Director Michael Gordon

Starring Rock Hudson, Doris Day

Scott’s Review #907

Reviewed June 6, 2019

Grade: B+

Pillow Talk (1959) is the ultimate in romantic comedies from the age of innocence in cinema.

In 1959, pictures were still wholesome and safe, providing happy stories and charming characters. The film is a lovely and enchanting experience with intelligent characters and fantastic chemistry among its leads.

Combined with a good romance and comic elements, it makes for a fun watch that still feels fresh and bright decades later.

Doris Day and Rock Hudson smolder as singles living in Manhattan.

Day plays Jan Morrow, a perky, independent interior decorator who dates frequently but has not yet found love. Hudson plays Brad Allen, a talented, creative Broadway composer and playboy who lives in a nearby apartment building.

Jan is frustrated by a party line that allows her to hear Brad’s endless phone conversations with the women in his life. He is annoyed by her prim and proper, holier-than-thou attitude. They bicker on the phone but have not met.

Through their mutual yet unknown-to-them acquaintance, Jonathan Forbes (Tony Randall), Brad realizes who Jan is, which leads to hilarity as he fakes a Texan accent and invents a new persona: Rex Stetson, a wealthy Texas rancher.

He succeeds in wooing Jan, who falls madly in love with him while unaware of his identity. Events culminate in the inevitable big reveal when the couple vacations at Jonathan’s cabin in nearby Connecticut.

Rock Hudson oozes masculinity and charisma, and nearly every woman he meets falls madly in love with him. Hudson’s sexual preferences are hidden from the public but well-known within the film industry, so one wonders if a few comical situations were added as an inside joke.

One can speculate if these additions were made with or without the star’s knowledge; rumors abound that Hudson reportedly carried on an affair with actor Nick Adams (Tony) during filming.

A recurring theme involves Brad mistakenly walking into an obstetrician’s office (twice!) and the doctor and nurse assuming he may be the first man to become pregnant as they attempt to locate him when he keeps disappearing.

Later, Brad attempts to trick Jan into believing Rex might be a homosexual because of his love for effeminate things.

The supporting players bring wit to Pillow Talk and are key to the film’s enjoyment. Randall, as Jonathan, is not quite the nice guy, but not entirely the foil. As he has designs for Jan, he warns Brad to keep away.

His intention, which fails, is to woo her with money, but Jan seeks true love.

Thelma Ritter’s performance as Alma, Jan’s boozy housekeeper, is delicious. She adds necessary comic timing and sardonic humor. We crackle with delight when she ultimately finds love with the elevator operator.

The lavish set design is flawless. It brightens the film while adding the luxurious style and sophistication that only New York City apartment living can bring. The combined sets of Brad’s and Jan’s apartments are gorgeous.

With bright colors and 1950s-style furniture, one can easily imagine how beautiful it would be to live in an apartment of this brilliance—I know this viewer did!

A Doris Day film would not be complete without several songs that the singer/actress performs. “Pillow Talk” during the opening credits, “Roly Poly” in the piano bar with Blackwell and Hudson, and “Possess Me” on the drive up to Jonathan’s cabin.

Pillow Talk (1959) is an example of a rich romantic comedy with significant elements. It is a bit of a fantasy and a bit silly, but it contains style, sophistication, and humor.

The film was an enormous success and was deemed “the feel-good film of the year” in many circles. Following the film, Hudson’s career was relaunched after a snag years earlier.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Actress-Doris Day, Best Supporting Actress-Thelma Ritter, Best Story and Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (won), Best Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Art Direction, Color

Singin’ in the Rain-1952

Singin’ in the Rain-1952

Director Stanley Donen, Gene Kelly

Starring Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds

Scott’s Review #874

Reviewed March 4, 2019

Grade: A-

Singin’ in the Rain (1952) is most closely associated with the entertainment industry in the oversaturated field of musicals released during the mid-twentieth century.

The transition from silent pictures to “talkies” is the basis of the story, giving the film important, as well as fun, subject matter.

Likable stars and sing-along tunes make the film memorable and decidedly All-American, though it may not be the greatest in the crowded musical field.

During the late 1920s, Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) was a famous and well-regarded silent film star. His co-star and studio-created romantic attachment is Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), an annoying and shallow leading lady with a harsh singing voice.

As more successful “talkies” (films with sound) are produced, Don finds himself smitten with musical chorus girl Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds). The plot to dub Lina’s voice with Kathy’s leads to comical chaos and the idea of creating a new musical amid a blossoming romance between Don and Kathy.

The fun and frolicking Singin’ in the Rain is lightweight but never silly or superfluous, thanks to its overriding message about the shift in Hollywood priorities.

Critically acclaimed from the get-go, this is unsurprising, as Hollywood loves stories about Hollywood, especially since the film was made just over two decades after sound-laden films overtook the world.

Furthermore, in 1952, television was making its debut to legions of fans, and its accessibility posed a serious threat to cinema, making the subject matter even more relevant.

Kelly and Reynolds make a nice enough pair, but I never thought they completely knocked it out of the park in terms a chemistry.

One slight flaw is the lack of hurdles that would prevent the couple from an inevitable union. Lina is the transparent foil and ultimately played for laughs, so she is not a serious threat.

The plot-driven conflict involving Kathy’s initial dislike of Don because she values stage over film is cute, but it ultimately proves a sham, as she has been a fan of his all along.

The musical is a comedy, but better hurdles might have made for a more interesting story.

Nonetheless, Singin’ in the Rain is a pleasure and a largely non-threatening experience. The hijinks as the characters struggle to put on their production are comical, and Lina’s New York accent and shrill singing voice threaten to steal the show from the more grounded central characters.

The musical numbers are a dream, and I especially like favorites like “Make ‘Em Laugh,” “Good Morning,” and the epic title song.

Through no fault of the film’s title, “Singin’ in the Rain” will forever be associated with the dark and cerebral A Clockwork Orange (1971) for me, not with the film. As the villain beats and rapes his victim by cheerily singing this tune, the song will forever hold a much darker association for me.

The dramatic final act is the highlight as a lavish premiere of The Dancing Cavalier is unveiled to a live theater audience hungry for something good.

When the crowd chomps at the bit for Lina to perform live, the big reveal of Kathy being the truly talented singer is displayed as the wizard in The Wizard of Oz style, as Don and Kathy kiss and ride off into the sunset together in a grand showbiz fashion.

In the crowded genre of the 1950s and 1960s musical productions that ravaged American cinema at the time, I mainly chose to watch West Side Story (1961), Gypsy (1962), The Sound of Music (1965), and Oklahoma! (1955) for pleasure, but Singin’ in the Rain (1952), an earlier gem, is worthy of value, especially for the memorable musical soundtrack it offers.

The story is light but also relevant and, most importantly, highly entertaining.

Oscar Nominations: Best Supporting Actress-Jean Hagen, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Motion Picture-Musical or Comedy, Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture-Musical or Comedy-Donald O’Connor (won)

Crazy Rich Asians-2018

Crazy Rich Asians-2018

Director Jon M. Hu

Starring Constance Wu, Henry Golding

Scott’s Review #860

Reviewed January 26, 2019

Grade: B+

Crazy Rich Asians (2018), the romantic comedy smash of 2018, is a fun romp that is memorable because it centers on the Asian population, which is shamefully underrepresented in mainstream American cinema.

For this point alone, the film is recommended and worthy of praise, but otherwise, it is a standard genre film with gimmicks, stock characters galore, and a predictable conclusion.

The numerous cultural tidbits included must be mentioned, which raise the film above mediocrity.

Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) and Nick Young (Henry Golding) are a happily dating New York City couple; she is a New York University college professor, and he is an entrepreneur.

They fly to Singapore to attend Nick’s best friend’s wedding, which results in antics and anguish. Rachel realizes that Nick comes from an extremely wealthy family and is Chinese royalty, owning a multitude of lavish hotels and real estate.

Most of Nick’s family, especially his traditional mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), disapproves of the pairing, viewing Rachel as a typical American who prioritizes passion over family.

Nick is a sought-after commodity among the single women of Singapore, and Rachel is forced to endure harassment and mockery at every turn. Her allies are Nick’s kind sister Astrid (Gemma Chan), Rachel’s outrageous college pal Peik Lin (Awkwafina), and her equally garish family.

The plot thickens when Nick’s scheming mother does a background check on Rachel and discovers a family secret.

Crazy Rich Asians is a formulaic romantic comedy with the standard situations and characters expected of a genre film. The rivalry between the good girl and her boyfriend’s domineering mother, the comic relief of the gay sidekicks as Peik Lin and another friend of Rachel’s, provides.

The caricatures of Peik Lin’s wild family, her unattractive brother fond of taking secret photos of Rachel, and Eleanor’s snooty, judgmental circle of female friends are all well cast yet one-dimensional.

It is perplexing why the filmmakers decided to make Nick only half Chinese rather than authentically Asian. Sadly, this may have been a reassurance that the film would be more marketable to mass audiences.

The film is presented as an Asian film, but it is an American film.

The storyline justification is that Nick’s father (surprisingly never seen) is British and that he and Eleanor met in college, only she being Chinese. Nick and Astrid’s English accents gnawed at me throughout the film.

Despite the myriad of cliches and manipulations, Crazy Rich Asians has a nice flow and offers a fun two hours. The film is flavorful with bright colors and visual spectacles of stylish and sophisticated Singapore and its modern and sleek nuances.

I adored the locales featuring the skyline and a rich overview of the robust and relevant city/country.

Fantastic is how the filmmakers add spices of traditional Chinese culture throughout the film’s telling, quickly becoming more of an ode to the good history. Nick’s grandmother, Su-Yi (Lisa Lu), takes pride in her excellent and artistic flowers, and Rachel is introduced to the art of dumpling making.

Crazy Rich Asians introduces a history lesson for those unfamiliar with ancient Chinese customs.

Flavorful inclusions of Mandarin Chinese language versions of American pop hits are also lovely additions, so the film has some tidbits to revel in other than the story.

Most songs reference money, such as “Money Honey” by Lady Gaga and “Rich Girl” by Hall & Oates.

The pacing of the film is nice. There is never a dull or dragging moment, and a nice balance of comedy and drama. Humorous is when Peik Lin provides Rachel with a costume makeover, ensuring she looks dynamic for the grand wedding, as she convinces her to fight Eleanor with fire.

Drama ensues when someone casts a dead fish on Rachel’s bed, and Eleanor spits that Rachel will never be enough for her son.

The film’s conclusion is predictable, resulting in a marriage proposal aboard a jet heading from Singapore to New York City. With a movie like Crazy Rich Asians, it is guaranteed that the couple lives happily ever after, riding off into the sunset in great defiance of Nick’s roots.

Due to the film’s success, a sequel is a solid bet, though I am also not betting the follow-up will be any good. Are romantic comedy sequels ever decent?

Filled with cliches, but satisfying most mainstream film-goers, Crazy Rich Asians (2018) creates a film with enough shards of Asian culture to at least get the Asian population on the map with a Hollywood production.

Although the film has a polished look and some stereotypes, it breaks no new ground other than good inclusion, and that is a start.

It Happened One Night-1934

It Happened One Night-1934

Director Frank Capra

Starring Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert

Scott’s Review #824

Reviewed October 25, 2018

Grade: A-

Perhaps the film that best defines the early cinematic romantic comedy and certainly the one most modern genre films can learn from, It Happened One Night (1934) is a lively, fun romp.

The film carted away the Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Actress Academy Awards, a rare feat, and defined what romantic tension and thoughtful dialogue should be in a quality picture. All the elements sparkle into an excellent classic film watch.

Ellie Andrews (Colbert) is a pampered socialite who recently disobeyed her overbearing and wealthy father by eloping with a blue-collar pilot who is feared to be after her money.

Determined, Ellie escapes her father’s clutches and hops on a Greyhound bus headed from Florida to New York, where her husband is. When she crosses paths with an out-of-work journalist, Peter Warne (Gable), they each find an opportunity to use the other to their advantage.

The pair’s adventures along the East Coast lead to antics and schemes as they fall madly in love with one another.

It Happened One Night successfully mixes a good romance with some screwball comedy without ever becoming silly or trite.

The film also serves as a good old-fashioned adventure story as Peter and Ellie face one hurdle after another on their trek north.

Pleasing is how the duo slowly finds romance but first begins as irritants towards each other. The chemistry between the actors is superb and never seems forced or contrived.

Frank Capra, a famous director with successes throughout the 1930s, culminating with the holiday favorite It’s a Wonderful Life (1946), had several Oscar-winning films during the decade.

It Happened One Night seems to have inspired most of them, and the acting, absurd situations, dialogue, and direction all successfully come together.

Shot in black and white and the Motion Picture Production Code, which heavily restricted details deemed too violent or sexual, It Happened One Night pushed the envelope quite a bit.

This is to the film’s credit- who can forget the adorable yet provocative scene in which Ellie shows her shapely legs to enable the duo to catch a ride? The lovable scene, non-risque in today’s modern world, was anything but in 1934.

An interesting, at that time unique, point is that supporting characters are more layered than is typical in romantic comedies. Danker, whom Peter and Ellie hitch a ride with, is seemingly a decent man but ultimately attempts to steal their luggage.

Later, Ellie’s preposterous father turns out to be a decent man, so the film also contains a few character surprises.

While not quite a pure masterpiece, It Happened One Night (1934) is nonetheless an inspired legendary film that can be viewed and enjoyed for the period in which it was made.

The film stands out among the similarly themed romantic comedies of the 1930s and 1940s and is a teachable moment for all filmmakers who explore the same genre territory.

Oscar Nominations: 5 wins– Outstanding Production (won), Best Director (won), Best Actor-Clark Gable (won), Best Actress-Claudette Colbert (won), Best Adaptation (won)

Legally Blonde-2001

Legally Blonde-2001

Director Robert Luketic

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Luke Wilson

Scott’s Review #807

Reviewed August 30, 2018

Grade: B+

Legally Blonde (2001) is a film that, by all accounts, should have been a hot mess, but for some reason is a great ball of fun.

High art it ain’t by any means, and the plot is implausible beyond belief, and suspension of disbelief must be securely tucked away.

Despite portraying more serious roles before and after this film, Reese Witherspoon is largely responsible for the film’s success and is closely associated with it.

Quite simply, all the elements align perfectly in this film.

Elle Woods (Witherspoon) is the president of her sorority at a Los Angeles college. Clad in fluffy pink attire and carrying her cute dog everywhere she goes, she epitomizes the stereotypical “dumb blonde”.

However, she does carry a 4.0 grade point average in fashion.

Expecting a marriage proposal from her upper-class, snooty boyfriend, Warner, Elle instead finds herself dumped due to not being serious enough.

Determined to prove herself worthy, she manages acceptance into Harvard Law School, along with Warner, and embarks on hijinks and adventures.

Warner’s fiancée and a potential new love interest cause turmoil for the boisterous Elle.

Legally Blonde never takes itself too seriously and is simply a fun, silly-minded, comic adventure.

Audiences will likely chuckle and smile along with Elle on her adventures as she gets into one pickle after another, always determined to prove her intelligence.

To be clear, the film itself is very formulaic and could easily have been trivial and uninspired, resulting in a bomb. But Witherspoon shines in the lead role, adding a likable, charming quality to the character.

The actress possesses great wit and comic timing, so that her character becomes more of a champion, and we root for her to overcome obstacles and succeed.

By miles, she is the standout in the film.

Suspension of disbelief is at an all-time high. In “real life,” there is no way Elle would ever get into the elitist Ivy League school, brandishing a pink resume or other silly tricks to be cute and appealing.

Nor would she ever likely be so instrumental in winning a murder case so quickly. To nobody’s surprise, Elle eventually graduates with flying colors and is honored to give a graduation speech, inspiring those around her.

But as implausible as these situations are, they are also Legally Blonde’s appeal.

The supporting characters are pure caricatures, especially the main foils (Warner and Vivian- who take Elle’s place as fiancée). Both are villains, Vivian going so far as to embarrass Elle by inviting her to a stuffy party under the guise that it was a costume party.

In the end, one of the characters “turns good”, another common element of predictable films of this nature. But again, the film is just pure and simple fun, so these stereotypes are okay.

In more modern times (not that 2001 was so long ago), the film would not have been directed by a man, but rather by a woman.

Screenwriters Kirsten Smith and Karen McCullah Lutz prepared a female-driven film that was based on a novel by Amanda Brown.

Why a man was chosen to direct is beyond me, but, alas, this is the way things were at the time.

Interestingly, another recent film I reviewed, My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002), would work perfectly as a retro romantic-comedy double feature with Legally Blonde (2001).

Both are fun and light, but also celebrate strong female characters.

Legally Blonde borrows heavily from the 1995 brilliant, similar-genre film Clueless, but is not as great as that film. Still, the film is an inspired effort, largely due to the charms of its lead star.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

My Big Fat Greek Wedding-2002

Director Joel Zwick

Starring Nia Vardalos, John Corbett

Scott’s Review #806

Reviewed August 28, 2018

Grade: B+

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a 2002 romantic comedy that became a surprising sleeper hit at the time of its release.

A novel story idea, the film was even recognized with a Best Original Screenplay Oscar nomination.

The film achieved success the old-fashioned way by garnering word-of-mouth buzz despite little promotion.

Good-natured, earnest, and tender, the film was nonetheless marred by an abysmal sequel and short-lived television series- a lesson learned in leaving well enough alone.

Comedian Nia Vardalos reportedly wrote the story as a one-woman play, and word of mouth among Hollywood A-list celebrities led to a film version starring Vardalos herself.

This casting choice adds enormous authenticity, as the writer’s vision shines through on screen.

The film has a fresh, modern feel. Otherwise, the supporting cast is brilliant and perfectly selected. From handsome love interest John Corbett to veterans like Lainie Kazan and Andrea Martin, everyone plays their part to the hilt and seems to be having a ball with the comic elements.

Dowdy Toula Portokalos is a lonely thirty-year-old Greek woman, considered the black sheep of her family. Of traditional roots, she is expected to marry and bear children as quickly as possible.

Toula still lives at home and works in the family restaurant in bustling Chicago, yearning for something more out of life.

When she sees dashing school teacher Ian Miller (Corbett) in the restaurant one day, she makes an embarrassing attempt to catch his attention.

Through a computer class, Toula blossoms and finally lands her man, but the drama is just beginning as the couples and their individual families’ differing cultures collide.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding is very well written, and, again, the authenticity shines through in each scene. Admittedly, it often feels like a television sitcom, and many scenes play for obvious laughs, but the laughs work.

The funniest of these scenes is when Toula and Ian (now engaged) decide to invite his parents to dinner at her parents’ house.

Predictably, events go awry as his parents, conservative and reserved, do not mesh well with hers-festive and bombastic.

Vardalos and Corbett may not have the greatest chemistry in film history, but the build-up and the romance are so charming that we can overlook the lack of lustful vigor or the sexual tension between the pair.

The film feels more like a PG-rated Cinderella story than anything heavier. Predictably, the couple shares a happily-ever-after ending.

As much of a jewel as My Big Fat Greek Wedding was in 2002, the risk with a film of this nature is to hold up well over time. Specifically, in the romantic comedy genre, films of this ilk have a short shelf life (if they are deemed relevant at all).

The humorous Windex references may be lost on audiences over time or grow stale.

Some may deem My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) fluff, largely because of the romantic comedy genre it falls into.

But it’s worth more than that, mainly because of the fresh, genuine use of culture and diverse backgrounds.

The film has a quality most standard “rom coms” lack: authenticity. Yes, it contains Greek stereotypes, but the overall vibe of the film is that of a sunny, fun, happy experience.

An uplifting film can sometimes be just what the doctor ordered.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Debut Performance- Nia Vardalos (won)

Working Girl-1988

Working Girl-1988

Director Mike Nichols

Starring Melanie Griffith, Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #748

Reviewed April 26, 2018

Grade: B+

Released during a decade known for excess, fun, and light comedy films, especially in its latter half, 1988’s Working Girl was a blockbuster hit at the time and, in modern times, is perfectly positioned as an identifier of the decade itself.

This can be both good and bad, with both a dated feel and a whimsical, basic good girl versus a bad approach that is appealing.

The film is romantic comedy fluff, but it is entertaining and features lovely views of New York City- one of my very favorite locales.

The film is directed by Mike Nichols, better known for heavier subject matter (1966’s Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and 1967’s The Graduate).

His leading of the picture, as well as all-star casting, surely made this film better than it ought to have been.

Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith) commutes via the Staten Island Ferry each morning into vast Manhattan, where she holds a secretarial job at a Wall Street investment bank.

When she has a bad experience with one of the brokers, she is reassigned to a female boss, the assertive Katharine Parker (Sigourney Weaver).

After Katharine steals Tess’s business idea and passes it off as her own to get in good with handsome Jack Trainer (Harrison Ford), Tess is determined to reveal the truth as a triangle develops among the three.

In tow are Tess’s best friend, Cynthia (Joan Cusack), and her cheating boyfriend, Mick (Alec Baldwin), in supporting roles.

Working Girl feels overwhelmingly like a “1980s film,” and while relevant at the time and kindly nostalgic, it does not hold up well in modern times, seeming better suited to a time capsule, unlocked from time to time for kicks.

The most garish example is the hideous hairdos that Nichols has Tess and Cynthia don- frizzed out and caked with Aqua Net hairspray is over-the-top even for the 1980s.

Then there are the inevitable tacky outfits, complete with bright colors and shoulder pads, as the girls hustle to their dull jobs. With these costume tidbits and the filming style, the tone screams the 1980’s.

The casting of the three leads is very good- Griffith, Ford, and Weaver all share nice chemistry, and the clear rooting value is for Tess and Jack to live happily ever after, with Katharine as the obvious foil.

The conclusion of the film is unsurprising, but as a romantic comedy, it is standard fare. The point is that the relationships are dynamic and the ride is fun.

Griffith is quite breathy and seductive in her role- a clear homage to the talents of Marilyn Monroe in her 1950s-era films.

Never known for great acting, Tess is the role of a lifetime for Griffith. Weaver sinks her teeth into an against-type villainous role, and Ford is dashing and charismatic as the leading man.

My favorite parts of Working Girl, and the strongest aspects of the film, leaving an indelible impression even after all of these years, are the sweeping camera sequences of New York City featured throughout the film.

Lots of scenes were shot in neighboring Staten Island, but the best shots of all are the luminous skylines of Manhattan that encompass the opening sequence and, later, viewpoints from the corporate offices.

There we see Tess on the Ferry heading across the Hudson River, all with the wonderful soundtrack song by Carly Simon, Let the River Run, playing in the background. The soothing tune and the approaching mammoth city set a nice tone.

The story itself is a sort of rags-to-riches, Cinderella-style experience from the point of view of Tess.

Taking night classes to better herself and clearly, a blue-collar type battling the giants of the corporate world, and the more sophisticated Katherine (she speaks fluent French!), is an enormous draw of the film to sustain mainstream audiences.

Corporate greed versus the little guy is an apt comparison here. Almost borderline fairy-tale, the fact that Tess gets the dashing Jack (in real life, he would undoubtedly be with Katharine) makes the film good escapist fare.

The working-class Staten Island versus the sophisticated Manhattan is another theme worth mentioning.

Thirty years beyond its original release. 1988’s Working Girl now seems dated, dusty, and of its time, like many similar-style films, but it still retains some of the enjoyment that undoubtedly made it a hit at the time of release.

A film that is fine to take out of the vault, dust off, and enjoy for some good escapist cinema and a predictable story of good overcoming bad.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Mike Nichols, Best Actress-Melanie Griffith, Best Supporting Actress-Joan Cusack, Sigourney Weaver, Best Original Song-“Let the River Run” (won)

Why Him?-2016

Why Him? -2016

Director John Hamburg

Starring John Franco, Bryan Cranston

Scott’s Review #704

Reviewed December 6, 2017

Grade: D

Why Him? (2016) is epic film drivel starring quite capable actors in a mish-mash of dull, predictable stories, obnoxious characters, and a need to attempt to go raunchier and raunchier for a cheap laugh.

Why there is a market for films like this is beyond me as no thinking is required (maybe the film will please those fans!), but the film scores slightly higher than a solid “F” based solely on a few chuckles uttered thanks to the only dim bright spots in this mess, Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally.

A story told dozens of times before in “slapstick comedy” fare, the premise is tired beyond belief. A good girl meets a bad boy, they fall head over heels in love and must deal with the aftermath of her parent’s meeting, and hating the bad boy.

The main gimmick is the rivalry between boyfriend and girlfriend’s father, like an unfunny Meet the Parents (2000).  A silly and uninteresting plot point about each character’s business success or lack thereof is mixed in as if anyone cares.

As with all films of this ilk, the story is wrapped up in a neat, tidy little bow by the time the credits roll, and all characters live happily ever after in perfect harmony.

In one of his most disappointing roles, James Franco plays Laird Mayhew, the wealthy, eccentric, thirty-something CEO of an upstart video game company.

He is foul-mouthed and comically speaks his mind or absentmindedly shows his ass on a Skype chat with his girlfriend Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) while her parents are linked to the chat at a birthday party.

Stephanie, a college student and girlfriend of Laird, invites her parents, Ned and Barb (Cranston and Mullally), along with their fifteen-year-old Scotty, for the Christmas holidays.

Predictably, Stephanie’s parents are appalled by Laird and want her to have nothing to do with him. When Stephanie arranges for Ned, Barb, and Scotty to stay at Laird’s spacious home, the antics take off as feuds and misunderstandings erupt.

The main problem with Why Him? is that director John Hamburg (famous for mainstream comedies such as Along Came Polly, 2004, and I Love You, Man, 2009) seems determined to push the raunchy comedy elements further with this idiotic film.

He makes Laird as obnoxious and crass as possible yet tries to make the character more “likable” by giving him a clueless quality; therefore, he is not mean-spirited and should be beloved by the audience.

The character does not work. Franco has played terrific roles- specifically in 127 Hours (2010) and  Howl (2010). As a fan of the talented actor, I expected more from him, but alas, some performances are only as good as the written material.

If there is a bright spot worth mentioning, it is with the casting of Cranston and Mullally.

Two actors are undeniably good at physical comedy. They do as much as they can with poorly written, stock-type roles. Cranston’s Ned, a middle-class small business owner from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is both envious and resentful of Laird, perhaps admiring the young man’s business savvy and regretting not being as successful.

Barb is a one-note, ditzy yet lovable wife, a role made slightly better by Mullally’s goofy portrayal. In one of the best scenes, Barb smokes pot and becomes a mess in her bedroom.

The following day, Ned is trapped on the toilet and has an embarrassing experience with Laird’s best friend, Gustav. While these scenes are juvenile, they are made better by the funny actors.

Suffering greatly from a tired and overused storyline that falls flat, unlikable, and dull characters, the film offers nothing of substance or worth.

Why Him? (2016) is entirely plot-driven with no character development or well-written characters.

The film is a complete waste of time. It results from a studio hoping to achieve box office success by churning out a poor comedy with wasted talent that will please only those audiences not expecting much from their films.

Roman Holiday-1953

Roman Holiday-1953

Director William Wyler

Starring Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn

Scott’s Review #694

Reviewed October 26, 2017

Grade: B+

Roman Holiday, released in 1953, was a box-office hit, pleasing legions of fans at the time and a critical darling.

The film reaped Academy Award nominations, including the coveted Best Actress statuette for a young Audrey Hepburn.

A happy, uplifting story, the film is not diminished by Cinderella’s reverse storyline but rather is a charming, romantic experience, immersing itself in the pleasing locales of the cultural city of Rome.

Admittedly, Roman Holiday is an example of a film in which I preferred the latter half to the former, but it set the bar high in the romantic comedy genre.

Our heroine, Princess Ann (Hepburn), has it all: a glamorous life, gorgeous clothes, and assistants tending to her every need and want.

However, she is unhappy and trapped in a rigid life that lacks freedom or decisions, to say nothing of the fun. She catches glimpses of party-goers reveling in each night from her expansive palace window.

Simply put, she is lonely and unfulfilled.

When she sees an opportunity to escape her life for a night, she snatches it and stumbles upon an American reporter, Joe Bradley (Peck). Despite their differing backgrounds, they fall madly in love.

At first, I found something missing in the film, and the chemistry between Peck and Hepburn did not immediately embrace me.

As the duo meets Ann, who is drunk from sleeping pills, and Joe is the ultimate nice guy who lets her sleep in his apartment, the story seems to lag and lacks a strong punch.

The pair drives around Rome on a scooter and acts childish and silly. Ann acts girlish because fun is an entirely new concept to her. At this point, the film is reasonable, but it reads more like a farce.

As Roman Holiday progresses, primarily through the final act, the film sheds some of its lightness and becomes much more poignant and meaningful.

Ann and Joe, while in love, realize they will not and cannot embark on a fairy tale ending, which truthfully, would have made Roman Holiday little more than a standard romantic comedy we have all seen before- you know the type- boy meets girl, roadblocks persist, boy whisks girl away and rides off into the sunset together.

While not a dark film, it goes deeper than a transparent, predictable ending.

Related to this point is that Roman Holiday has a realism that sets it apart from many films undoubtedly inspired by it. Still, unlike this film, it leans into contrived or predictable situations.

As Joe and Ann fall in love, the audience falls in love with them. The main plot hurdle—Joe’s temptation to profit from Ann once he realizes her true identity after a sought-after interview—is earnestly handled without pretension.

Other similar films ought to take note of this.

Indeed, the historic and culturally relevant locales of Rome are a significant selling point of the film, and if these scenes had been shot on a movie set, a lack of authenticity would undoubtedly have emerged.

Instead, we are treated to such fabulous location sequences as the Colosseum, the Tiber River, the Trevi Fountain, and Piazza Venezia. Such a delight is the long sequence of Roman escapades as Joe and Ann traverse the city in giddy bliss.

It is enjoyable to see how Roman Holiday contains no real villain.

There are no physical hurdles to the duo’s relationship—no outside forces plotting to keep Joe and Ann apart, other than their lifestyles. Ann lives in a world of royalty and pampering, but Joe is an everyman, so the chances of living happily ever after are slim.

Film lovers intent on discovering one of the early romantic comedies—one could argue that It Happened One Night (1934) was the first—should watch a feel-good Hollywood classic from 1953. It is rich in honesty, good humor, and raw emotion without being too heavy a melodrama.

After a mediocre start, the film finishes with gusto.

Oscar Nominations: 3 wins-Best Motion Picture, Best Director-William Wyler, Best Actress-Audrey Hepburn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Eddie Albert, Best Screenplay, Best Story (won), Best Art Direction, Black and White, Best Cinematography, Black and White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White (won), Best Film Editing

Golden Globe Nominations: 1 win-Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture-Drama-Audrey Hepburn (won)

Latter Days-2003

Latter Days-2003

Director C. Jay Cox

Starring Steve Sandvoss, Wes Ramsey

Scott’s Review #679

Reviewed September 7, 2017

Grade: B

In the now-saturated genre of LGBT film, a novel little more than a decade old, Latter Days, released in 2003, tells a story with an interesting religious spin and is, to my knowledge, the first LGBT film to depict a clash of religious values, which deserves kudos.

The film was popular among film festivalgoers, yet critically, it received only mixed reviews

There are both positives and negatives to this film.

When rigid Mormon innocence meets plastic Los Angeles Playboy, anything is bound to happen as a surprisingly sweet romance develops between them.

While the overall feeling of the film is rather “cute”- not exactly a rallying cry of cinematic excellence- Latter Days suffers mostly from some sophomoric acting and an odd combination of a soft-core porn film and a wholesome Hallmark channel television movie quality.

This, in turn, allows the film to achieve only a slightly above-average final score.

Young Mormon missionary, Aaron Davis, just out of Idaho, is sent to Los Angeles with three fellow missionaries to spread the word of faith.

Soon, he meets an openly gay waiter, Christian, promiscuous, brazen, and proud of it.

After a silly bet with friends predicting how long it will take Christian to “deflower” Aaron, the young men become enamored with each other as Aaron’s secret desires for men are exposed.

This leads to a test of faith for Aaron, especially with his religious and rigid parents, waiting with fangs drawn as he is banished back to small-town Mormon territory.

The romance and chemistry between the lead actors are the best part of Latter Days. Though Aaron and Christian could not be more opposite, there is warm chemistry that actors Sandvoss and Ramsey successfully bring to the screen.

Sandvoss’s “aww shucks” handsome, innocent looks complement Ramsey’s extroverted, pretty-boy confidence, and the film succeeds during scenes containing only the two actors.

Much is gained from a throwaway laundry scene as the young men chat and get to know one another’s backgrounds, as well as during the brilliant soft-porn scene as the nude men thrash around a hotel bed making love.

Though admittedly, neither actor is the best in the acting department.

The nudity in the film is handled well- explicit, yes, but never filmed for a cheap or trashy effect. While the nudity is sometimes sexual, the men also lounge around nude in bed while chatting about life and their various ideals.

Also positive is the casting of Jacqueline Bisset as the motherly Lila.

Suffering from her drama (an unseen, gravely ill romantic partner, and admittedly an unnecessary add-on to the story), she is the sensible, liberal-minded owner of Lila’s restaurant, where Christian and his friends work and socialize.

The film creates a “family unit” in this rather nice way. Bisset and her British sophistication add much to the film.

In contrast to Bisset’s character, the fine casting of Mary Kay Place as Gladys, Aaron’s rigid mother, stands out.

Hoping to “pray the gay away”, she and her husband banish Aaron to a garish rehabilitation facility to turn him straight after a suicide attempt.

The character does show unconditional love for her son, but refuses to accept his sexual preferences.

There is no question that director C. Jay Cox slants the film in a clear direction, portraying the Mormon characters as stodgy and bland.

Latter Days slips when the focus is on the other supporting characters.

I tend to champion large casts and neat, small roles, but Christian’s friends are largely self-centered, bantering about either their sexual escapades or their career aspirations as they wait tables, hoping to get a big break.

Worse yet, a silly side story is introduced focusing on a misunderstanding between Christian and his best friend Julie.

I could have done well without many of these secondary characters.

In the final act, the film goes the safe route with a brief red herring about a character’s death, only to quickly wrap up with a nice, happy ending featuring a Thanksgiving dinner at Lila’s restaurant.

Latter Days (2003) contains a good romantic story between two men that does fine without the added trimmings that occasionally bring the film down.

All in all, a decent effort.

Broadcast News-1987

Broadcast News-1987

Director James L. Brooks

Starring William Hurt, Albert Brooks, Holly Hunter

Scott’s Review #602

Reviewed January 11, 2017

Grade: B

Broadcast News is a 1987 feature film that is admittedly an intelligently written romantic comedy.

It was rewarded with several Academy Award nominations, in what has been a bleak year for the film industry.

That said, I found the film’s overall result to be a decent experience, but certainly nothing fantastic. I was left with the feeling that it was “okay”.

I do not think it was good enough to warrant Oscar nominations, but it was enjoyable all the same.

The principal characters are interesting enough, albeit safe.

The film centers around three television news people- a neurotic news producer (Holly Hunter), a reporter (Albert Brooks), and his rival (William Hurt).

All of them are ambitious and determined to climb the ladder of success in their Washington, D.C., base.

The film explores the relationships between the characters.

As stated, there is nothing wrong with the film. I would have expected a bit more- perhaps a deeper or darker story- instead, despite some witty dialogue, the film is largely a safe, predictable journey.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actor-William Hurt, Best Actress-Holly Hunter, Best Supporting Actor-Albert Brooks, Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing

The Band Wagon-1953

The Band Wagon-1953

Director Vincente Minnelli

Starring Fred Astaire, Cyd Charisse

Scott’s Review #549

Reviewed December 15, 2016

Grade: B

The Band Wagon, made in 1953, is a second-tier MGM (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer) production- and by that, I mean it is not as stellar as other musicals of its time.

It lacks the majestic appeal of similar musicals like An American in Paris and Singin’ in the Rain.

Directed by Vincente Minnelli- a legendary music director of the 1950s, and starring Fred Astaire, The Band Wagon tells the story of a washed-up movie star trying to revive his career on Broadway.

He meets opposition from his co-star and prima ballerina, Gabrielle, played by Cyd Charisse, ironically, an actress who appeared in Singin’ in the Rain.

The Band Wagon is a fun movie, but it is not nearly as good as the film mentioned above. Instead, it is a pale imitator. While other musicals of similar style can be watched numerous times, The Band Wagon is a one-and-done affair.

The story starts slowly but gets much better towards the end.

The film has a few memorable musical numbers, notably “That’s Entertainment.”

Oscar Nominations: Best Story and Screenplay, Best Scoring of a Musical Picture, Best Costume Design, Color

Show Me Love-1998

Show Me Love-1998

Director Lukas Moodysson

Starring Alexandra Dahlstrom, Rebecca Liljeberg

Scott’s Review #496

60000454

Reviewed October 22, 2016

Grade: B

Throughout the latter part of the 1990s, films with a more LGBT perspective (then referred to as the gay and lesbian genre) were being released more readily.

It was not until the 2000s that mainstream offerings on the subject (Monster, 2003, Brokeback Mountain, 2006) hit the big screen to wide acclaim.

Show Me Love (1998) is a Swedish coming-of-age story about two high school girls, who are opposites in terms of social acceptance, who find love.

Interestingly, the film was directed by a male, Lukas Moodysson.

Show Me Love originally had a different title, a crude reference to the town the film is set in, in western Sweden. Still, when the film was considered for Academy Award contention (it did not make the cut), filmmakers were advised to modify the film’s title to include any shot.

The film contains a grainy look- using handheld cameras in parts and, of course, is in the Swedish language.

Agnes is sullen, introverted, and brooding. Known throughout the high school hallways as the angry, weird lesbian, she has few friends, and the ones who are kind to her, she shuns away.

Elin, by contrast, is popular, lively, and charming- everybody loves her.

However, Elin is restless in the tiny Swedish town where she lives and yearns for excitement. When Agnes develops a crush on Elin, she confesses it all to her computer but to no one else.

The film is nicely put together and, given the year 1998, is quite brave. Today, many years have passed, and progress within the LGBT community has been made; a film like Show Me, Love is a more common occurrence.

Director Moodysson does not go for anything gratuitous or steamy but rather spins a sweet coming-of-age tale, not only of teen love and hormones but also of outcasts and feelings of loneliness.

It’s a film that most can relate to in some way.

The actresses portraying the leads (Dahlstrom and Liljeberg) are fantastic in their roles, playing them with conviction and believability.

Despite being opposites, we buy their attraction and chemistry. Nothing is forced or dishonest.

My favorite scenes are the awkward 16th birthday party for Agnes, thrown by her well-meaning yet clueless parents. When nobody except a disabled girl shows up, Agnes viciously insults her, causing her to leave.

The family sits in the living room, eating the food that was planned for anticipated guests. It’s a poignant, rather sweet moment. Despite Agnes’s unpopularity at school, she has a very strong, loyal family unit- that is nice to see.

Later, Elin and her sister attend the party, but more as an excuse to avoid another one. Finally, Elin and Agnes share a kiss, but is it a mean dare or is it authentic?

A clever aspect of the film is how Moodysson distinguishes between Elin’s and Agnes’s sexualities. Agnes is gay, open, and out. Elin is very different and has boys interested in her.

The girls could not be more different, and this adds a layer of complexity, as each is at a different stage in self-discovery. This feature also makes Show Me Love very honest in its storytelling.

The film is not a masterpiece and could have ventured into more controversial territory. Could they be harmed for being lesbians, given the town they live in? Why is Agnes so sullen?

This is a stereotype (the brooding lesbian) that needs to be changed, though, given the time of the film, I will give it a slight pass. Why not make Agnes a happy, cheerful, gay girl?

How will Elin’s sister deal with Elin’s sexuality, or is it merely a phase for her?

All sorts of darker issues might have been explored, but Show Me Love (1998) is tender, sweet, and lighter fare, yet still an adventurous offering.

Date Night-2010

Date Night-2010

Director Shawn Levy

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg

Scott’s Review #481

70121501

Reviewed September 17, 2016

Grade: D+

Date Night is a perfect example of mediocrity in modern filmmaking.

We have two current comedic actors here- Steve Carrell and Tina Fey- circa 2010- at the top of their game.

The filmmaker’s idea is to pair these two and make an appealing romantic comedy appealing to the masses.

The main issue with this film is that the result is generic and quite an average offering.

And the entire film is incredibly plot-driven with no character development to speak of. If I am being too harsh, admittedly there is rather nice chemistry between the two leads, but it is wasted because of sloppy writing.

A couple from the New Jersey burbs, Carrell and Fey portray husband and wife, Phil and Claire Foster. Saddled with two kids and their romance reaching dullsville, Phil decides to take Claire to a ritzy Manhattan restaurant.

When they arrive, they cannot get a table but pretend to be another couple (the Tripplehorns) to obtain their table after the other couple’s no-shows. This leads to a tale of mistaken identity as the Tripplehorns possess a flash drive that a mobster (Ray Liotta) wants.

This then leads to a chase throughout Manhattan to outrun and outwit their pursuers. Wahlberg plays a hunky client of Claire’s, always shirtless, who is meant to threaten Phil and Claire’s marriage.

Several others of the current Hollywood elite- Kristen Wiig, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Mark Ruffalo, make small and somewhat pointless appearances. Specifically, Franco and Kunis as a stoner-type bickering couple are silly and unnecessary to the story.

Carrell and Fey are quite funny as individuals and as a duo- Date Night, though, does not capitalize on nor showcase their respective talents. The film tries too hard to come up with scenario after scenario of the two on the run and encountering one problematic situation after another.

As the plot of Date Night wears on, I find myself noticing that each situation that occurs is a measure of convenience.

Conveniently, Claire has a client in town (Wahlberg), who is a security expert. They go to him for help and, predictably, his hunkiness bothers Phil and piques Claire’s interest- though of course, we know full well Phil and Claire will end up together- that is how these mainstream films go.

In another scene. Phil and Claire can break into an office building unnoticed, trigger the alarms, conveniently find a needed file, and escape, miraculously all before the police arrive minutes later.

Very plot-driven.

The lead actors in Date Night are appealing and even charming together, but the silly, inane plot makes it unappealing to watch and the slew of stars that somebody decided would be a great addition to a lukewarm film is odd.

The roles written have little bearing on the central plot so it was apparent why they were added.

Date Night (2010) is a film we have seen time and time again with other actors in similar roles.

Easy A-2010

Easy A-2010

Director Will Gluck

Starring Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #478

70123920

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: B-

Easy A (2010) is an example of a film where some parts are good, and other parts are dumb. However, at the end of the day it is forgettable and who will remember a film like this in ten years?

The film is a teen comedy about a girl who makes up a rumor about herself to gain attention from her peers.

Emma Stone is great in this movie and shows the enormous potential of her budding film career. She reminds me a bit of Lindsay Lohan. She is likable and great at comedy and presents a fun persona.

Also deserving of credit is Lisa Kudrow who appears in the movie.

At times, the dialogue is intelligent and witty, other times it turns into a typical dumb comedy and that is sad because based on the star power involved, Easy A (2010) might have been a better film than it was.

This Is 40-2012

This Is 40-2012

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann

Scott’s Review #473

70244168

Reviewed September 6, 2016

Grade: B

I must admit, I was not looking forward to seeing this movie, and my initial thought was “typical dumb comedy” that has been seen a million times before.

While This is 40 (2012) does contain those elements and is marketed toward a certain target audience, this movie is, surprisingly, smartly written and intelligent…overall.

I have not viewed Knocked Up (2007), but I understand it’s a somewhat follow-up to that film, as the two central characters are now married and traversing through a different time in their lives-adulthood.

I enjoyed Paul Rudd’s, Melissa McCarthy’s, and whoever played the oldest daughter’s, performances the most, though Rudd has become the latest actor to play the same role over and over again.

I enjoyed the rock n roll elements and the confrontation scenes as these were very cleverly written and nicely acted.

Sadly, at times the film relies on the standard bathroom humor done thousands of times before- a clear attempt at a laugh, and Jason Segal’s and Megan Fox’s characters are unnecessary to the main plot.

This Is 40 (2012) is a film that, at its heart, shows the trials and tribulations of generations of families, humorously, and done rather well.