BEFORE: Super Bowl Sunday has become this weird mix of a sporting event, rock concert, Thanksgiving (for the food), and the Fourth of July - for some reason there's a dramatic reading of the Declaration of Independence before the game, in addition to performances of the National Anthem AND "America the Beautiful". I don't see the direct connection to patriotism, but I guess it's part of the NFL brainwashing...I mean branding campaign.
Since part of my job involves tracking commercials with animation and effects, it's always a busy day for me - sort of like my Super Bowl, if you will. I started watching TV at noon, first to clear my DVR to make room for the game, then to scan through the ads during the pre-game (which for me starts at noon, not 6 pm) and then finally the ads during the game. I think there was even a football game somewhere in there, but I forwarded over most of it. Anyway, by 11 pm I was so burned out on the NFL that I was happy to watch the opposite, which would be a "chick flick" (anyway, I watched all my football movies in December...)
THE PLOT: Reunited by the death of a college friend, three divorced women seek revenge on the husbands who left them for younger women.
AFTER: I didn't really mind the plot here - everyone who gets divorced has their own form of therapy to go through, anyway. Sometimes it's real therapy, sometimes it involved drinking or shopping or just getting back on the dating scene. And I have to admire the plan that the three scorned women concoct - it all ties together, and it's as intricate as something you might see in one of those casino heist movies.
My problem came when they said that it "wasn't about revenge". Ummm...it sure looked like it. If it wasn't revenge, what was it? Why couldn't they get their revenge on their ex-husbands, and OWN that? It feels like the filmmakers were hedging their bets, since they wanted the audience to like and admire these women for acting in their own best interests, and if it's not vengeful, well then we can't hate them, can we? There's a point at which their plan starts to weaken, due to personality conflicts between the main characters, and their internal doubts - again, this feels like it was manufactured to soften their characters, and take away any negative feelings we might have about them.
Again, as with "War of the Roses", it's hard to muster up much sympathy for main characters who seem financially well-off, reasonably intelligent, and capable, who choose to devote their time on negative things like revenge and blackmail, instead of focusing their talents in a more positive direction. And the one who's an actress has an Oscar, a Golden Globe, and a few pieces of Manhattan real estate - she'll be fine! And don't those Hollywood marriages come and go? You'd think she'd be more used to it than the others...
NITPICK POINT: I also work in a position where I track who's working at all the major ad agencies - and in the top creative positions, people come and go so often it's like their offices have revolving doors. A character in this film complains about how hard it would be to open his own agency, but anyone who reads Adweek knows that it happens all the time. For a top advertising executive, it would be no big deal.
Starring Bette Midler (last seen in "Get Shorty"), Goldie Hawn, Diane Keaton (last seen in "Marvin's Room"), Sarah Jessica Parker (last seen in "Honeymoon in Vegas"), Dan Hedaya (last seen in "A Civil Action"), Stephen Collins (last seen in "All the President's Men"), Victor Garber (last seen in "Milk") and Marcia Gay Harden, with cameos from Elizabeth Berkley, Bronson Pinchot, Rob Reiner, Ivana Trump, Ed Koch, Kathie Lee Gifford, and J.K. Simmons (last seen in "Extract").
RATING: 5 out of 10 glasses of champagne
No comments:
Post a Comment