BLOGS
So, I'll come out and admit it: I saw Valentine's Day on Valentine's Day, because A) My boyfriend has a sick sense of humor, and B) I love bad romantic comedies. Not bad in a What's Your Number? sense, where there's hope that the movie will actually be good. I mean flat-out horrible, you-know-what-you're-getting-yourself-into rom-coms. Even movies like Friends With Benefits have too much potential, which is why I hold out for Sex and the City films and anything that stars Jennifer Lopez as a sad single gal. Garry Marshall's pandering, celebrity-stuffed Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve naturally make this pristine list.
While I was able to extract enjoyment from 2010's Valentine's Day ("She's the only other fifth grader I know that has Frank Zappa on her iPod!"), the only pleasure I took from New Year's Eve was when the theater accidentally turned the lights up during the climax of the movie for a few seconds, as if to say "We understand if you just wanna leave now," to the critics in the room. I really can't overstate the lifelessness of each storyline and how disappointed I was when there wasn't one single dumb twist in the whole thing. The gay athlete shocker in Valentine's Day was wholly lame (to put it kindly), but at least the writers were trying to insert something mildly interesting into the movie. This time around, I guess they had to make room for Lea Michele and Bon Jovi singing, or something? I have no effing idea.
While I'm inclined to say that if you like the people in the cast, you'll like this movie -- because they play the exact same annoying archetypes they always play (I'm shocked Sofia Vergara's character wasn't just named "Gloria," and that Rico Rodriguez didn't cameo) -- there's no excuse for what Garry Marshall did to my beloved Michelle Pfeiffer. Her character, Ingrid, is supposed to be -- as my press packet tells me -- a "meek, unassuming soul who has walked the same small circuit of her neighborhood and worked the same thankless job without complaint her entire adult life." She has so much trouble with social interaction and basic balancing skills that I double-checked after the movie to make sure that she wasn't supposed to have some mild-to-moderate form of autism. I honestly don't know how to write or describe this in a way that's not offensive, but at one point I even convinced myself that maybe Ingrid had Asperger's, which briefly warmed me up to her storyline in which a young man (Zac Efron) doesn't get turned off by this woman who has been misunderstood her whole life because of her disorder. So, there's that.
Also horrifying: if you're a supporter of the natural birth movement, the Seth Meyers/Jessica Biel "Induce labor so we can win $25,000!" plotline will probably infuriate you, as it showcases expecting parents being the people trying to rush childbirth, whereas the doctors are the ones who want to draw things out and never, ever induce labor. Which... yikes.
My advice is to wait a few months until this crap comes out on Netflix or finds its way to the bargain movie bin, and do yourself a favor and just watch the seasonally-appropriate Love Actually again instead. Unless you really really like Katherine Heigl.
Think you're a TV or movie expert? Prove it! Play Trivia Without Pity, our new online trivia game with over 2,000 questions about the shows and films you love -- and love to hate.
What are people saying about your favorite shows and stars right now? Find out with Talk Without Pity, the social media site for real TV fans. See Tweets and Facebook comments in real time and add your own -- all without leaving TWoP. Join the conversation now!
Sponsored Links
3 Comments
Add a comment
MOST RECENT POSTS
Today's TWoP News: Friday, April 6, 2012
The Most Heinous Person on Reality TV This Week
Scandal: When Shonda Goes Sorkin, You Get Our New Guilty Pleasure
Community: Life During Wartime
TWoP 10: Best Apartments on TV
American Reunion: School's Out Forever
Indie Snapshot: Damsels in Distress
Friday, April 6, 2012: The Finder
BLOG ARCHIVES
The Moviefile
April 2012
5 Entries
March 2012
26 Entries
February 2012
24 Entries
January 2012
25 Entries
December 2011
27 Entries
November 2011
22 Entries
October 2011
22 Entries
September 2011
29 Entries
August 2011
27 Entries
July 2011
30 Entries
June 2011
25 Entries
May 2011
13 Entries
April 2011
23 Entries
March 2011
22 Entries
February 2011
33 Entries
January 2011
39 Entries
December 2010
21 Entries
November 2010
29 Entries
October 2010
23 Entries
September 2010
25 Entries
August 2010
26 Entries
July 2010
29 Entries
June 2010
36 Entries
May 2010
22 Entries
April 2010
26 Entries
March 2010
30 Entries
February 2010
19 Entries
January 2010
19 Entries
December 2009
15 Entries
November 2009
21 Entries
October 2009
27 Entries
September 2009
30 Entries
August 2009
28 Entries
July 2009
34 Entries
June 2009
27 Entries
May 2009
24 Entries
April 2009
23 Entries
March 2009
18 Entries
February 2009
30 Entries
January 2009
56 Entries
December 2008
51 Entries
November 2008
61 Entries
October 2008
102 Entries
September 2008
86 Entries
August 2008
99 Entries
July 2008
116 Entries
June 2008
95 Entries
May 2008
86 Entries
April 2008
67 Entries
March 2008
14 Entries
Totally not surprised. I only saw a commercial for this once (we DVR everything, so 9 times out of 10 we fast forward through commercials) and my exact thoughts were... "dumb."
:-P
Glad to see I was right.
It's stunning how these movies get made and how these actors signed on. There must have been something else they could have done with their time. Here's another fantastic bad review - from a whacked out Finnish film reviewer -
http://mankabros.com/blogs/btp/2011/12/09/new-years-eve-review/
A key question is - will this movie still be in theaters by New Year's Eve?
@Jill Kennedy: I had the same thought when I saw the commercial - Halle Berry? Robert De Niro? Y'all two Oscar-winners need money THAT badly?