
![]() |
|
This Week's PCR Movie Review |
![]() |
![]() |
"Down With Love"
Movie review by: Movies are rated 0 to 4 stars
| |||
|
PCR Home Ashley's Hollywood Creature's Corner Splash Page Matt's Rail Mike's Rant Archives 2003 2002 2001 2000 Crazed Fanboy | |
Note: A special add'l review of The Matrix Reloaded by Brandon Jones follows Mike's review
Being born in 1960, I missed the hey day period of the romantic comedy. To me, Rock Hudson was Commissioner McMillian, Doris Day was a television guest star and Tony Randall was Felix Unger. It wasn't until the late shows of the 1970's that I discovered the until then unknown genre, of which films like "Pillow Talk" and "Lover Come Back" were the best examples. They were bright and cheerful, with enough double-entendré to make you laugh out loud. And, on a technical note, they featured the best use of the split screen until Brian DePalma came along.
"Down With Love," wants you to know right at the start that what you are seeing is a definite tribute to those times. It does so by letting you know that the film is being presented IN CINEMASCOPE, just like in the old days. Brightly colored credits and a bouncy score help set the mood for what is to follow.
Zellweger is Barbara Novak, a young woman from Maine who has come to the New York City of the mid-60's to promote the publication of her book, "Down With Love." As explained by her editor (Paulson) the book is the modern woman's way of not having to equate love with sex. All you need is will power and a lot of chocolate and soon you will be as uncaring as men, able to have sex a la carte! McGregor is Catcher Block, a ladies man with charm to spare. Block is the highly regarded exposé writer for the very popular KNOW magazine (imagine a cross between Esquire and LOOK). Block is to interview Novak for a cover story, but his many extra curricular liaisons cause him to continuously cancel. Besides, not having seen Novak, he figures her for a bitter spinster. Even without the interview, Novak's book becomes a best seller as women all over the world discover what a little self control and chocolate can do. Unconvinced by all of the publicity, Block sets out to prove Novak wrong. What follows is a classic battle of the sexes, circa 1963.
Director Reed has fashioned a great tribute to those carefree days when the Yankees were big and the Broadway musical "Camelot" was bigger. He has created an almost perfect copy of an era of film making that hasn't been seen for some time. From the beautiful, bright costumes that defined an era to the "modern day" bachelor pad (complete with hidden bar and hidden bed), from the "theatre marquee" montage to the bad rear projection in the taxi cabs, the film is truly faithful to the time it is conveying. A kinescope of the great Judy Garland doing the title song is blended in to a recreation of the "Ed Sullivan Show," rather then Garland's own variety show of the time. I can only guess that this was done so that long time Sullivan impersonator Will Jordan can introduce his "really BIG show!" The use of split screen is hilariously put to the test. And a shot of Zellweger sunning herself on her balcony is an almost mirror image of Sue Lyon in "Lolita."
Both leads play to their strengths. Zellweger, coming off the years best picture, "Chicago," has certainly got the perky yet smart woman down pat. And McGregor builds on the reputation he gained in "Moulin Rouge" as an outstanding romantic lead. Pierce is spot on perfect as the fussy publisher of KNOW who secretly hides a crush for Novak's editor. It's the kind role Tony Randall played to perfection and having Randall in the picture (as the owner of the book publishers) is a great touch.
With the summer being taken over by action movies, "Down With Love" is a fine way to pay her back for going to see "The Matrix Reloaded." On a scale of zero to four stars I give "Down With Love"
I liked to reserve the right to change that score because, like the first, this film needs to be viewed several times to truly appreciate the story. That is probably both the beauty and the curse of this type of sci-fi franchise -- ask George Lucas.
I thought that it was appropriate that in his review, Nolan noted "Back to the Future 2" -- a subpar movie at best. The film was, however; meant to be half of a large body of work and together with part three becomes tolerable and significantly more entertaining. I feel confident that we will see that here.
The Wachowskis developed, wrote and filmed both "Reloaded" and "Revolutions" simultaneously, so many of the storylines are so disjointed because they are resolved in the next chapter. The endless parallels to religion and the Jesus references became too obvious for my taste, but it was difficult to digest the incredibly heavy dialogue. I need to see it again to better understand what the Wachowskis were striving for.
We were swept away with the first movie, so the trite dialogue and stoic performances (which I know is intentional) become irritating and straining. The fight scenes and CGI deliver with only minor problems.
I felt a self-esteem boost after seeing Larry Fishburne's gut hanging out (it's been a long journey since Pee Wee's Playhouse), and I enjoyed the secondary cast immensely. Then there's Neo...well, at least he doesn't "whoa" in "Reloaded." They are meant to be stoic characters, so Keanu is perfect.
All in all, I enjoyed it. Will I enjoy more after another sitting and with the "Revolutions" wrap-up -- yeah, probably. Does it deserve the star-and-a-half Nolan gave it: no way, that's "Teen Wolf Too" territory and that is truly unwatchable.