Oscar Moment: “Love & Other Drugs”

2 11 2010

“Love & Other Drugs” was chosen to open the AFI Fest this week, and I couldn’t think of a better time to discuss this interesting player in the 2010 awards race.

Comedies are always a wild card with the Oscars; sometimes they hit, others they flop.  Over the past decade, there have been eight Best Picture nominees that would fall into the comedic category at the Golden Globes (NOTE: I excluded musicals).  The last comedy to win Best Picture was 1998’s “Shakespeare in Love,” which is a romantic comedy not unlike “Love & Other Drugs.”

On the other hand, that movie was a period piece, an aspect that tickles Academy fancies more than the romantic comedy side.  Since 1998, no romantic comedy has been nominated for Best Picture, so “Love & Other Drugs” does face an uphill battle.  However, because of the expanded field, our only frame of reference with complete relevance to the movie is the 2009 Best Picture race.  Last year, popular romantic comedies “(500) Days of Summer” and “It’s Complicated” received Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture but failed to receive similar acclaim from the Academy.  Replacing them were darkly comedic “A Serious Man” and animated “Up,” ineligible for the award at the Globes.

So are we looking at a movie that has no power to extend its reach beyond the Golden Globes?  Based on initial critical reaction, that may be the scenario.  The Hollywood Reporter‘s Kirk Honeycutt calls it a melodrama and shockingly conventional romance with “ADD like you wouldn’t believe.”  Todd McCarthy of IndieWIRE writes that it’s “an enormously contrived and cloying romantic drama without a moment of believable reality to it.”  Kris Tapley at In Contention wrote the line that I found most discouraging: “it could have been this year’s ‘Up in the Air.’”

The movie is apparently charged with nudity that Variety‘s Justin Chang called “abundant” and sexuality that Honeycutt proclaimed “unusually bold.”  This could be off-putting to some of the older voters; however, it could pique curiosity among younger viewers and make it a box office hit.  If it does become a serious contender, expect much talk on the nudity/sexuality to surround any discussion of the film.

Not all see “Love & Other Drugs” as a lost cause.  Guru Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly is on the movie’s side, writing back in October that “the Jake Gyllenhaal/Anne Hathaway comedic drama reminds me a lot of Up in the Air and Jerry Maguire (both past Best Picture nominees). And it’s perhaps the sexiest movie I’ve seen in years. It won’t be for everyone, but if most critics go for its blend of titillation and tragedy, then it’s a contender for one of the five ‘B-list slots.’”  Karger also listed it among his 10 best picture predictions (albeit last).

I could see it filling out one of those last slots, although until the film’s release, I won’t be able to say how much a nomination would surprise me.  Something tells me though that we won’t be looking at many other nominations for the movie, though.  Even though Anne Thompson of IndieWIRE wrote “writer-director Zwick has done what I have long wanted him to do—get into the James L. Brooks/Nancy Meyers smart comedy mode,” I have a hard time seeing him finding room in the Best Director field.

As Univarn wrote on my latest predictions, “you have a lot of directors who have been very good for a long time all coming into their own right now.”  Zwick has been directing many seemingly Academy friendly movies like “Glory” and “Blood Diamond” but has never been recognized for his directorial prowess.  (Interestingly enough, he won an Oscar for producing “Shakespeare in Love” and was nominated for producing “Traffic” in 2000.)

Zwick co-wrote the movie as well, but a tight Adapted Screenplay race with such heavyweights as “The Social Network” and “Toy Story 3” may keep his work out there as well.  In my mind, the movie’s best bet is in the acting categories.  It seems to be the one exemplary aspect of the movie that all critics agree on.  Said Honeycutt, “Gyllenhaal and Hathaway are terrific as two sarcastic, sexually hungry young people eager to hop into bed, or go up against the nearest wall for a knee-trembler.”

Both sub-30 actors have been nominated for Oscars before: Gyllenhaal for Supporting Actor in 2005 for “Brokeback Mountain” and Hathaway for Leading Actress in 2008 for “Rachel Getting Married.”  They are reaching the age of anointment quickly, and it’s only a matter of time before the Academy just caves and gives them the trophy.  Whether it will be for “Love & Other Drugs” is the question.

Let’s start with Gyllenhaal, the film’s leading man.  Since his nomination, he has only starred in four movies, three of which were Oscar also-rans and the other a Hollywood swords-and-sandals epic flop.  Gyllenhaal has gotten many raves for his latest role, ranging from Tapley and Thompson calling him the best performance in the film to Hollywood Elsewhere‘s Jeffrey Wells dubbing this “his most winning performance ever – not the deepest or darkest or saddest, perhaps, but 100% likable.”  He’s facing a tough Best Actor field with the likes of Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, and Robert Duvall as well as fellow Gen-Y actors James Franco, Ryan Gosling, and Jesse Eisenberg.  If his performance is light as Wells alludes to, it may not be anything more than a Golden Globes play.

The more intriguing prospect for the movie is no doubt Anne Hathaway playing Maggie, the Parkinson’s-affected love interest of Gyllenhaal’s slick pharmaceutical salesman.  She has the more dramatically appealing and Academy friendly role, and the difficulty of tackling such a role will surely keep her in discussion all season long.  In the past decade, Academy Award nominees for Best Actress have included drug addicts, Alzheimer’s patients, a depressed writer, a psychotic killer, a paralyzed fighter, and an alcoholic.  Whatever physical condition causes leading women to ail, the Oscars have been there to reward them.

Zwick calls her “in bloom” in “Love & Other Drugs,” and early reviews seem to be in accord.  Chang calls her performance sensitive and understated, also adding that “the actress makes Maggie a vivacious presence, the sheer force of her spirit serving as a rebuke to her physical setbacks.”  Wells calls it her most appealing performance yet, praising Hathaway in writing “you can read every emotional tick and tremor on her face.”  However, the movie’s critical struggle could harm her; Tapley points out  that Hathaway plays a “one-trick, woe is me character who never finds a genuine end to her arc.”

There are plenty of great comedies made every year, many better than some of the dramas that typically make their way into the Best Picture field.  Here’s to hoping that “Love & Other Drugs” has the goods to bring glory to the genre at the Academy Awards.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay





REVIEW: Valentine’s Day

6 07 2010

As much as I wanted to say that all these stars couldn’t save a movie, I can’t. Much to my surprise, “Valentine’s Day” was a relatively charming and very entertaining look at just about every kind of love that might exist. And given the day it is set on, all the love stories are as pumped up on steroids as the size of the cast.

The line-up is like a romantic comedy all-star team, and to top it off, they’ve even peppered in some serious actors. Oscar winners Kathy Bates, Jamie Foxx, Julia Roberts (who falls into the rom-com category as well), and Shirley MacLaine all make appearances. “Grey’s Anatomy” fans can rejoice at getting McDreamy AND McSteamy together outside of Seattle Grace hospital. Teen idols for both boys and girls are represented through Taylor Swift and Taylor Lautner. In case you had any doubt, you can find at least one star to make your valentine in the cast.

And there’s every kind of love story you can imagine. The movie rounds all the bases and covers all the definitions of the L word that keeps the world spinning. There’s young love and old love, pure love and cheating love, parental love and physical love.  And of course, because you can’t have love without it, there’s heartbreak.

Now, just because it tells all these stories doesn’t mean that they are all told well.  There are plenty that are just plain boring to watch or so horrifyingly predictable that the movie would have done well to shuck it and lose a few minutes off a pretty bloated running time.  At over two hours, it’s a marathon romantic comedy.  You can feel the fatigue starting to set in as it crosses the hour mark, dragging along under the weight of too many characters and storylines.  Most are wrapped up with class, albeit in a fairly typical and predictable fashion.  Be sure to stay tuned until the very end because there are some nice and touching twists up its sleeve.  Turning it off would be a big mistake.  Huge.  B /





REVIEW: Alice in Wonderland

21 03 2010

No matter your opinion on director Tim Burton, it can’t be denied that the man has some true creativity.  This spark is what gained him notoriety in the late ’80s and early ’90s with hits like “Beetlejuice,” “Edward Scissorhands,” and “The Nightmare Before Christmas.”  Recently, however, Burton has seemed to have found that creativity isn’t always synonymous with originality, and has mainly spent the past five years retooling other people’s work.

But while Burton puts his own unique spin on these projects, I have felt that each of them has lost a very distinct part of their original identity.  With his remake of “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” the movie lost most of its original charm and fun.  His film adaptation of “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” dropped a sizable portion of Stephen Sondheim’s songs, and the story lost a great deal of character development.

Unfortunately, “Alice in Wonderland” falls into the same pattern.  This time, Burton has stripped the movie of a lot of its sense.  Granted, this is a fairly non-sensical story, so this isn’t the worst movie to receive this treatment.  But Burton makes it lose even the most basic coherency, and no movie can be excused for that.

It’s hard to describe what exactly Burton’s take on “Alice in Wonderland” actually is.  It is not a remake of the Disney animated classic like I assumed it would be.  But it is not any sort of sequel, prequel, revamping, or modernizing of anything we have ever seen.  This version is just off in its own little world, reminding us of our favorite characters but never giving us any reason to fall in love with them again.

The story follows Alice (Mia Wasikowska) at the age of 19, once again drawn by the white rabbit into the magical world where the impossible is very possible.  The land is now being ruled by the ruthless Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), whose reign of terror is enforced by the fearsome Jabberwocky.  Alice becomes public enemy #1 whenever it is foreseen that she will slay the beast.  To ensure that her head stays on her shoulders, Alice enlists the help of the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) along with a few other oddballs including the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp).

Burton said that his intention was to “try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events” because he never felt an emotional connection between the characters in the original.  In this respect, his version is an utter disaster.  I saw exactly the opposite of what he intended: Alice wandering from place to place with absolutely no plot building.

On the acting side of things, this is obviously Mia Wasikowska’s big moment, and this movie is obviously going to get her noticed.  I’m sure this is only the beginning of many movies that we see this young talent in.  As for the old pros, the only person that seems to be having any fun is Helena Bonham Carter.  She makes the character her own, and it works.  Not to mention, she made me chuckle every time she spat out the Red Queen’s trademark phrase “off with her head!”  Johnny Depp can’t seem to make any more sense out of the Mad Hatter than we can, and in Anne Hathaway’s brief moments on screen, she seems to be fascinated only with twirling around the set like a ballerina.

In fact, the only thing about “Alice in Wonderland” that was executed exceptionally well was the mischievous Cheshire Cat, voiced by British comedian Stephen Fry.  Striking the perfect balance between cute and dastardly, I found myself consistently begging for the blue smoke to materialize into the devilish kitty.  But most of my wishing was not rewarded, much like my wishing for the movie to become something other than a mess.  However, it is a mess that is distinctly Tim Burton – whether that’s good or not is up to you.  C /