Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
WHY I DIDN'T LOVE "I LOVE YOU, MAN."
Tyler Cowen gives I Love You, Man, a good capsule review. I sort of disagree. Rather, it's a bad movie that seems sort of like a good movie. Further commentary after the fold to avoid spoilers.
I Love You, Man, is not an Apatow joint. And it shows. The movie isn't tight. Paul Rudd's character goes through an actual arc that ends up proving itself a circle, but no one else does. Jason Segal's identified problems -- relentless immaturity, an inability to form lasting attachments with women, and an increasingly isolated existence as his friends age and he doesn't -- are left totally unresolved. The female characters managed to be more unidimensional than in most of these films, which is bad for the movie but the sort of negative achievement that borders on being cinematically significant.
The bigger problem is that the movie can't decide on a single vision of Rudd's character. At the beginning, he's much as he is at the end: A girlfriend guy, or more even than that, a husband. His climactic monologue -- delivered to Segal, natch -- is about how the best night he's had in five years was spent making a summer salad and watching Chocolat. His search for a best friend is the result of a series of semi-public humiliations: First at his family's dinner table and then, indirectly, when he hears his fiance's friends mocking him and warning his fiance that he'll be a clingy, pitiable spouse. But when Rudd is forced, towards the close of the film, to explain why he wants to marry Zoe, he says that it's because she wanted him to have friends for his sake, "which is the most romantic thing ever." The problem, of course, is that it didn't happen that way at all!
What the movie gets right, I think, is the way in which making friends as an adult is not merely similar to dating, but actually worse. The absence of sex renders the process more uncertain: Unlike with dating, there are few discrete waypoints available to help you judge the relationship's progression. Unlike with dating, the acceptable behaviors aren't rigidly defined and so the appropriate moves are not always as obvious. Even the expectations are more uncertain: Two single people at least have a certain symmetry in their dating lives. That's not true for two potential friends, one who might have lots of friends and a busy social calendar and the other who might be searching out a best friend or a whole new group.
Obviously, that oversimplifies a bit. But it's a good topic to explore. And the movie explores it fairly well. It just doesn't manage to be all that good of a movie along the way.
COMMENTS (11)
So that would mean that your definition of a good movie is something "tight" in which each of the characters are multidimensional and evolve?
How about this: granted, it wasn't The Godfather, but did you think it was -- you know -- funny?
Posted by: Greg | April 6, 2009 5:56 PM
Sort of. But obviously I like funny movies. So if my review hangs on plot holes and insufficiently developed characters, I'd imagine it implicit that they detracted from the film's humor.
As for the film's humor, I thought it was mildly funny. But it was cringe humor (not because the movie was bad, but due to awkwardness) rather than guffaws. I'm a big fan of this genre of film, but this one didn't do it for me.
Posted by: Ezra | April 6, 2009 6:35 PM
As a 30 year old who just relocated to a brand new city where I don't know anyone, I can attest to the fact that making same-sex platonic friends is way harder than finding a date/boyfriend/girlfriend.
I find it much more depressing than even my longest bouts of being unintentionally single.
I can be perfectly happy without a girlfriend, but its actually quite hard to be happy without any friends. And its hard to make them, especially the older you get.
Posted by: Greg | April 6, 2009 6:35 PM
"did you think it was -- you know -- funny?"
It had its funny bits and was entertaining enough. Much of the movie, however, was nothing more than badly done filler between gags. The final wedding scene, for example, was not quite as good as an average skit at a high school talent show. I would advise anyone renting the movie on DVD to keep his fast forward in his hand.
Posted by: ostap | April 6, 2009 6:37 PM
This didn't do it for me either. But having recently moved from DC to Columbus where I know no one, I can attest that making dude friends is hard work. You never know when it's appropriate to ask for a phone number.
Posted by: Russell | April 6, 2009 6:53 PM
Also, see Adventureland. It's much, much, much better.
Posted by: Russell | April 6, 2009 6:58 PM
Greg and Russell,
Check out meetup.com. Find something you're interested in, join that meetup group, meet tons of people that share your interests. Worked for me when I relocated to Chicago and didn't know anyone.
No, I don't work for meetup.com
Posted by: R. Totale | April 6, 2009 8:06 PM
What Greg and Russell said.
But back in the late 80's we were in this weird twilight zone where being gay was sort of, but sort of not, acceptable. Lead to all sorts of hilariously uncomfortable misunderstandings!
You kids today, with your Twitter and your being comfortable with your sexuality, don't know from awkward!
Posted by: 80's | April 6, 2009 9:14 PM
"did you know ~ think it was funny?"
no friends? new town? long night?
want a funny movie?
"young frankenstein" even when revisited, never disappoints!
"ah, sweet mystery of life!"
want an old and very entertaining comedy classic?
"harvey" with jimmy stewart, has some brilliant comedic performances.
Posted by: jacqueline | April 6, 2009 11:28 PM
When I needed friends, I just began drinking with my work buddies. Culminated in a DUI, but anyways. Maybe it'll get to be the next "Apatov-like" movie.
Posted by: MarkusR | April 7, 2009 1:09 PM
http://www.cheap-lotrogold.com/
Posted by: wow gold | August 6, 2009 10:18 PM