I saw the world premiere of this film at Sundance and it is seriously one of the five worst films I have seen in my lifetime. During the Q&A (in which the director and entire cast were present), no one in the audience had anything worth saying because the film was so awful. It was a pretty awkward moment.
Considering all of the 10s this film has received, it seems to me that people connected with the film are clearly the ones giving it a rating without considering the quality of the final product. If you honestly think this is a good film, you have no taste when it comes to film-making.
Jimmy Fallon is painfully one dimensional. Lucy Liu is good, but her role has no meat-- it's sad that these are the only parts she is given. Tom Arnold is not an actor and never has been. Sharon Stone is caricaturish. Illeana Douglas and Tony Hale give the best performances, but in minor roles. What most people don't know about this film is that the director cuts back and forth between the present and the past at least twenty times-- an overused technique that not even the most mundane film students resort to these days. This forces Arnold and Stone, who play Fallon's parents, to carry a major portion of the film in the flashbacks.
There is rarely a truthful moment in the film. The script is contrived. The cliché ending can be seen in any below-average Hollywood romantic comedy. I hope this director grows in maturity before he writes or directs another film. He had the budget and resources at his fingertips, but blew his opportunity because he wasn't properly equipped.
Which Sundance programmer allowed this film to be shown? They should be ashamed of themselves. The work speaks for itself and it clearly falls short. I'd hate to think that the programmer was being wooed by the producer's rep or other people behind the film without considering the ramifications of screening something of this quality at Sundance. Is this what Redford's vision has come to?
Considering all of the 10s this film has received, it seems to me that people connected with the film are clearly the ones giving it a rating without considering the quality of the final product. If you honestly think this is a good film, you have no taste when it comes to film-making.
Jimmy Fallon is painfully one dimensional. Lucy Liu is good, but her role has no meat-- it's sad that these are the only parts she is given. Tom Arnold is not an actor and never has been. Sharon Stone is caricaturish. Illeana Douglas and Tony Hale give the best performances, but in minor roles. What most people don't know about this film is that the director cuts back and forth between the present and the past at least twenty times-- an overused technique that not even the most mundane film students resort to these days. This forces Arnold and Stone, who play Fallon's parents, to carry a major portion of the film in the flashbacks.
There is rarely a truthful moment in the film. The script is contrived. The cliché ending can be seen in any below-average Hollywood romantic comedy. I hope this director grows in maturity before he writes or directs another film. He had the budget and resources at his fingertips, but blew his opportunity because he wasn't properly equipped.
Which Sundance programmer allowed this film to be shown? They should be ashamed of themselves. The work speaks for itself and it clearly falls short. I'd hate to think that the programmer was being wooed by the producer's rep or other people behind the film without considering the ramifications of screening something of this quality at Sundance. Is this what Redford's vision has come to?
Tell Your Friends