BEFORE: When I dropped "Love Actually" and "New Year's Eve" from the February roster, I had to replace them with something, so I chose this one. But this presents another dilemma - is this a romance film or a spy film, or is it both? And since I'm doing spy movies in about 3-4 months, can I justify watching this one now without tearing my whole chain apart and re-ordering it? Ah, screw it, I'm probably over-thinking things. Let's just watch this one for the romance part and get it out of the way.
Linking from "The Five-Year Engagement", Jason Segel was also in a film called "SLC Punk" with Til Schweiger (last seen in "The Three Musketeers", but he was also in "New Year's Eve", damn it!), who plays the villain in this film.
THE PLOT: Two top CIA operatives wage an epic battle against one another after they discover they are dating the same woman.
AFTER: They do this funny thing before the 10 pm news on FOX here in NYC - they run a promo with dramatic music and say, "It's 10 pm. Do you know where your children are?" Which strikes me as kind of funny, because if you didn't know where your children were at 9:59 pm, your parenting skills aren't going to suddenly improve because of a promo on TV. What does the fact that it's now 10 pm have to do with the behavior of teens? They can commit crimes or acts of self-destruction at any hour of the day, after all.
It's like they're trying to prompt a reaction from the audience, to make people suddenly think, "That's right, I have children! Hmm, I wonder where they are?" Do they think parents were made complacent by prime-time programming, and need to be jolted back to reality? Of course, the people who designed the promo had the best intentions, but the content of the piece is ridiculous.
Which brings me to tonight's film - well-intentioned but completely ridiculous. We're meant to believe that a pair of federal agents would jeopardize their careers, and the safety of our nation, to use all of their skills and high-tech equipment to hold a contest as they both romance the same woman. How many terrorists entered our borders while they planted bugs in this woman's apartment? How many other agents were removed from high-profile cases to help these two guys win a bet?
Of course, the film just focuses on one main villain, because the only reason that a terrorist would enter the U.S. would be for a personal vendetta - he's not here to blow anything up, or broker a major arms or drug deal, because that would require adding elements of an actual plot. And don't bother closing the harbor, checking ships, or following any leads, because of course that terrorist is going to stalk the agents that did him wrong. This is beyond moronic, because a terrorist in the U.S. would do everything possible to AVOID federal agents - am I right?
And really, the needs of our nation pale by comparison to the personal needs of our government employees, when you think about it. What could be more important or more noble than one of them finding the love of his life, or at least a little personal satisfaction? Heck, I always thought that the love between two people didn't amount to a hill of beans in the bigger picture, but what do I know? Maybe once a federal agent gets his personal affairs in order, he'll return to his job with a renewed sense of purpose.
But really this is contrivance after contrivance, from the two bros dating the same girl, to some odd family connection between the two leads, which I don't think it was fully explained - are they cousins? Stepbrothers? Adoptive relatives? How did they have the same grandmother? Their surveillance also allows them to tailor dates specifically to the likes and reactions of the woman in question, which results in situations ranging from the unlikely to the financially impossible. Unless, of course, they're misappropriating federal funds for the purpose of getting laid.
But if the focus is on making a spy film that's also a romance/love triangle and is also a buddy comedy, then there really isn't much of a focus at all, is there? Then again, this film came from the director of the "Charlie's Angels" revamp, and who remembers the plot to that film? Then again, who cares?
NITPICK POINT: The film doesn't seem to be able to follow its own internal logic. When Lauren first meets Tuck, she declares that his accent is "sexy". But when she's trying to decide between the two men, she labels being British as a flaw - well, which is it?
Also starring Chris Pine (last seen in "Unstoppable"), Tom Hardy (last seen in "Marie Antoinette"), Reese Witherspoon (last seen in "Vanity Fair"), Chelsea Handler (last seen in "Hop"), Angela Bassett (last seen in "Green Lantern"), Abigail Spencer, with cameos from Rosemary Harris (last seen in "Before the Devil Knows You're Dead"), Laura Vandervoort.
RATING: 4 out of 10 frying pans
No comments:
Post a Comment