web
counter
 

Enough Romance. Let's F**k!

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (46)



i-love-you-phillip-morris-2009.jpg

The best part of I Love You, Phillip Morris is the mad dash you make to Wikipedia afterwards to find out how much of the film is actually true. It’s also the most disappointing part, but not for the reasons you’d expect. What you learn from Wikipedia and the off-shooting sources is that what you’re told in the film about Steven Jay Russell, the man played by Jim Carrey in the film, are not only true, but that there’s more to it. In fact, you can get a much better idea of who Steven Russel is from Wikipedia and one newspaper interview than you can from the entirety of I Love You, Phillip Morris. It’s not that directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa (the writers behind Cats and Dogs and Bad Santa) took excessive dramatic liberties, it’s that they took egregious tonal liberties, and in trying to force a dark comedy down the throat of a potentially brilliant biopic, they robbed the story of its much better truth.

Steven Jay Russell is a brilliant con man, maybe one of the smartest real-life criminals you’ve never heard of. He was adopted by a conservative family and later, became a police officer to be in a better position to track down his real parents. Eventually rejected by his birth mother, Russell decided to abandon his wife and child and come out of the closet after a car accident brought on an epiphany, only to realize that his homosexual lifestyle required larger financial means. So, he engaged in a series of scams and small cons to support himself.

He would eventually get busted and imprisoned, where he’d meet Phillip Morris, who was in the clink for over-borrowing a rental car. The two fell in love, and their love affair would continue after Russell left prison and helped to secure Morris’ release. But it wasn’t too long before Russell found his way back into prison, after he created fake identities and qualifications to become a high-level corporate drone in a couple of food-service companies.

It’s here where the man’s real life took a turn for the really fascinating — masquerading as judges, police officers, and handymen, among others, Russell successfully broke out of prison on multiple occasions. Unfortunately, much of the real con man artistry is reduced to montage in I Love You, Phillip Morris, exchanged for more focus on the relationship between Russell and Morris.

Indeed, part of the problem with the movie is Phillip Morris himself. It’s not that Ewan McGregor, who plays Morris, does a major disservice to the character (he plays Morris as a slightly more fey version of his Moulin Rouge character); it’s that the character seems almost superfluous. He does provide the motive for the prison escapes, but the love story doesn’t ring true. It may have been brave to cast to A-listers in a movie with explicit gay sex scenes, but it never feels like any more more than two heterosexual actors winking at the audience, “Look! We’re straight, but we’re having the butt sex on camera! Aren’t we bold?” No. What Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger did in Brokeback Mountain was bold, because theirs was a love story we could believe. What Jim Carrey is doing in Phillip Morris is barely a notch more restrained than Firemarshall Bob riding his hose to gay town.

What Steven Russell managed to do in the final chapter of his life, before being shuffled off into permanent solitary confinement (where he still resides) was both heartbreaking and extraordinary. But, in I Love You, Phillip Morris, it’s played off as a dark joke, and one that’s not particularly funny. Had Steven Russell and Phillip Morris felt like real people, instead of swishy gay caricatures in a bad screwball comedy, I Love You, Phillip Morris could’ve been a superb romantic caper. What it is, instead, is a flat gay-love farce that exchanges the truth for antics and butt sex. The intention may have been to advance gay relationships in film, but more than anything, the dumb gay stereotypes set us back to zero sum.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Hardest Thing You Could Ever Do Is Pretend to Give a Rat's Ass About the "Three Stooges" Movie | The Best Fake Band Names Created By Pajiba Commenters









Comments

That's weird. This came out in Europe about a year ago.

Do we get the gay love stories first?

Posted by: Simon at January 7, 2011 11:39 AM

Simon,

We use Europe as a test market for our man-on-man butt sex, soooo, how was it?

Posted by: Kballs at January 7, 2011 11:43 AM

Not that great. I'm going back to having sex with ladies.

Oh....

Posted by: Simon at January 7, 2011 11:46 AM

Simon: It's not that you get them first. It's that America gets them last, or not at all. The average 'merican doesn't like them homo flicks, (present company on Pajiba excluded).

Posted by: BWeaves at January 7, 2011 11:46 AM

Boo! Such a disappointing review! I'm still holding out hopes that it's a little better than that because the trailer was so good. I had read an interview w/Russel and also Morris in EW about how Russel's antics and "love" nearly destroyed Morris's life as he was unwittingly acting as accomplice to Russel's continued life of crime. I was really looking forward to getting sold on the lovestory with the movie. I'm still going to keep my fingers crossed.

Posted by: valerie at January 7, 2011 11:47 AM

As for the movie, wait till it's on DVD.
Dustin hit the nail on the head - it's a great story but badly told.

Posted by: Simon at January 7, 2011 11:49 AM

Europe is gay for gay love stories.

Posted by: csb at January 7, 2011 11:51 AM

It came out (get it? like, *coming out*, like *gays*?) in France before it came out in Britain, I think. They're very open to le sex de la butt, over there.

Posted by: Caspar at January 7, 2011 12:20 PM

Simon, the distributor was afraid to release the film in America because of the butt-sex. Its release date was pushed back, then removed, then reinstated, then pushed back, then removed, then reinstated, then pushed back, until it barely came out. It's your typical "oh crap, what do we do with it now?" story that often follows a decent Sundance showing.

Posted by: Robert at January 7, 2011 12:27 PM

I can't wait to watch this with my awkward wife, and to view her reactions of discomfort during the sex scenes (which are hilarious even with the straight porn erotic dramas that I bring home).

Posted by: superasente at January 7, 2011 12:57 PM

only to realize that his homosexual lifestyle required larger financial means.

Because he was so fabulous and needed expensive gay clothes and trips to Paris? What does this mean? What part of his homosexual lifestyle was so expensive?

Posted by: Brenton at January 7, 2011 1:43 PM

They filmed parts of this in Miami and Ewan McGregor and Rodrigo Santoro who is also in this film (the hot guy from Love Actually and the big golden god from 300) were staying at the hotel where I worked. I was working out in the gym and Ewan was on a treadmill next to me for like 30 minutes and I didn't even notice it was him. We finished jogging at the same time and as we both got off the treadmills I locked eyes with him and almost had a heart attack. "I love you Obi Wan. I have loved you since Trainspotting and even Down With Love." He worked out the rest of the week, but I never said anything. Heavy sigh...

Posted by: daria at January 7, 2011 1:45 PM

"They're very open to le sex de la butt, over there."

Caspar, shouldn't that be "le sex du le fesse?" I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do hate it when people garble their romance languages.

Robert, I think they kept pushing the release date back because it's not a very good movie, but the butt sex probably didn't help.

Also, Superasente, are you absolutely sure you're not Mr Smith? I'm starting to get worried again after reading your comment.

Posted by: Mrs Smith at January 7, 2011 2:10 PM

I can't wait to watch this with my awkward wife

I can't think of a funny way of mocking this statement without insulting your wife, superasente, so I'll just be on my way.

Posted by: Kballs at January 7, 2011 2:10 PM

@Brenton ...yeah Steven is a fabulous image-is-everything type of person, though the movie does wrongly explain this away as "being gay is expensive". To be fair...those are Steven's words and Steven's viewpoint.

This is the second review of this movie I've read that cries about all the homo stereotypes. I am a down-to-earth sports and outdoors-loving type of person (also a homo) but I did not find this movie any more cliched then any hetero relationship in a screwball comedy. The Christian hetero marriage stereotypes portrayed in this very same movie are equally cliched (perhaps more). I'll admit the real Steven Russell is much more fascinating than this movie is, but I found the movie sweet and funny. It made me laugh out loud and get a bit misty-eyed in the theater.
Since we hardly ever see gay main characters, some queens are just too sensitive about the way homo's are portrayed. Maybe that stems from the hetero guy in the crowd who was laughing a bit too loud at the homo jokes to mask his own discomfort? Girl, that's his problem not yours. Lighten up Gladys.

Posted by: dagnabbit at January 7, 2011 2:23 PM

It's interesting that the real-life Steven Russell is serving a 144-year prison sentence, basically for fraud and for making the prison system look foolish on multiple occasions. And yet many much more violent criminals are in and back out in relative short order.

As for the movie, such a pity they decided to go that route since many real-life stories are far more interesting than their adaptation counterparts. Odd because the homosexuality in reality was a mere detail to the character, not really the story itself. And because of that, the movie is looked at as being a "gay" movie instead of about a complex character who just happens to be gay. The actually story didn't need punching up as it read like a screenplay already. And because of that, despite any claims of this being based on a true story, people will only look at this as farcical and fictitious.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 7, 2011 2:47 PM

"Firemarshall Bob riding his hose to gay town. "

Wasn't it Fire Marshall Bill?

Also, sorry to hear this. I thought it might be pretty interesting, but I guess I'll give it a pass.

Posted by: Rob at January 7, 2011 2:49 PM

Wow, I'm a little disappointed. I disagree with most of this review. I thought the movie was just plain great to be honest.

I'm always a little disappointed though when movies get reviewed not for how good a movie it is, but for how well it told the true-life story. I also ran to Wikipedia immediately after seeing it, and while I did think, "wow, the real ending is actually more interesting", in the end it was still more faithful to real events than anything I can remember seeing recently, and I never would have heard of this story if it hadn't been for this movie.

I really pity anyone making a movie whose main characters are homosexual, as people are much more critical of how the sexuality is portrayed, as if each individual must be a politically-correct-as-possible representation of the entire sexuality. Most of my friends are gay, and if you saw some of them portrayed accurately on-screen, you'd definitely be crying stereotype. Some people are actually just like that.

Anyway, Ewan McGregor made this movie for me. I thought he was fantastic.

Posted by: JohnnyBee at January 7, 2011 3:03 PM

Go for it Kballs. I'm always looking for new ammunition.

Posted by: superasente at January 7, 2011 3:11 PM

bleujayone wrote "Odd because the homosexuality in reality was a mere detail to the character, not really the story itself. And because of that, the movie is looked at as being a "gay" movie instead of about a complex character who just happens to be gay."

The way you describe the real character was exactly how I took the movie to be. I genuinely just felt like it was a great story whose main characters just happened to be gay, despite the love story or what people seem to be perceiving as a huge focus on sexuality. I think people are likely to get that perception from any movie like this, unless it's left 100% up to you to figure it out, so that 3/4s of the way through you go, "hey, i think this guy is gay". The beginning of the man's story was realizing that he was gay, so I don't understand how people expect it to be completely ignored when re-telling his story.

Posted by: JohnnyBee at January 7, 2011 3:20 PM

Antics and butt sex? Count me in!

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at January 7, 2011 3:48 PM

Disappointing to hear, I was looking forward to this one. I'm still going to watch it, mind you, and much like superasente, force it on my awkward spouse.

Posted by: the bees knees at January 7, 2011 3:56 PM

JohnnyBee-

I do not expect the aspect of the character being gay to be ignored so much as it seems to be overly emphasized either by the filmmakers or the distributors- or at least that is the impression given.

The main motivation of the character shouldn't just be that he's gay and therefore shouldn't be hit over peoples' heads. I mean to say there are plenty of solid characters in cinema over the years who were indeed gay- but it wasn't the fact the were gay that made the character fascinating any more than if they were straight (or any other individual trait for the that matter). It would be like telling the story of Gandhi and just focusing on his fasting, or or one about Adolph Hitler and only focusing on his strange love of American football marching bands (yes it's true). They might be interesting parts about the character, but it would be silly to think that tells the whole story. I should think there are a number of other things that motivated him into becoming the person he is rather than his sexuality alone and simply glancing over them, if at all, hardly does it justice.

Now not having seen the movie myself, it might not be that fair to say, but based on reviews and advertising, I have seen a trend of this movie focusing too long on the wrong parts- certainly not the first movie to do that. By looking too hard at certain parts, they have risked missing out on showing the whole picture. It would be sad enough if the story were just a work of fiction (which this risks looking like). But the fact that it is real with plenty of detail to take from is pitfall that is all the more easily unavoidable.

Posted by: bleujayone at January 7, 2011 4:34 PM

This sounded like a really good movie to go and see but they just had to mess it up with all of those gay themes. I’m not a homophobe, I knew some guys that were pole smugglers back in the day and how they made love didn‘t bother me at all, so you can keep your rude comments to yourself.

Posted by: Pookie at January 7, 2011 5:57 PM

You say you're not a homophobe Pookie (which I highly doubt), but you sound like you're ignorant as hell. Boo you suck. Sorry if that was rude. (Not really.)

Posted by: Pookie's Mom at January 7, 2011 6:15 PM

The intention may have been to advance gay relationships in film, but more than anything, the dumb gay stereotypes set us back to zero sum.

I thought the stereotypes were about dumb blondes...

At work today, my mildly socially awkward/tactless coworker mentioned that he watched it last night and that the gay sex scene was "disgusting," which I was about to question when he added that he was watching with his young cousin, since he thought it as a Jim Carrey comedy. THEN he added that the sex scene was fine until you realize it's two guys. Then I gave up. Chinese people, am I right?

Posted by: SaBrina at January 7, 2011 6:37 PM

wow, I watched this in the theaters here in the Philippines end of March last year

that's quite a delay

Posted by: arrrghzi at January 7, 2011 6:37 PM

Oh, yay. It's been a while since I've been treated to one of Pookie's "I'm not a homophobe, but gay people are gross" posts.

Posted by: Craig at January 7, 2011 6:48 PM

DAMN DAMN DAMN.

I was so hoping that this would be good.

DAMN DAMN DAMN.

Posted by: duckandcover at January 7, 2011 6:51 PM

dagnabbit's comment may turn the tide for me if I'm feeling bold with my $10.25 sometime later this month.

Posted by: duckandcover at January 7, 2011 6:56 PM

Wow I am surprised. I completely disagree.
I thought this movie was not only smart and hilarious but the the chemistry and commitment from carey and mcgregor made it have a real heart. I was fighting back tears towards the end. I thought Ewan played the part so sweetly that it made total sense to me that jim careys character went so far for him.

I thought it was a plain great movie. And on top of that, even thought there was so much dick on dick talking and action It didnt even feel like a "gay" movie to me. Just felt like a unique and real love story.

Posted by: dinka at January 7, 2011 8:52 PM

Caspar, shouldn't that be "le sex du le fesse?" I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do hate it when people garble their romance languages.

Posted by: Mrs Smith at January 7, 2011 2:10 PM

Well, as it happens, I am a grammar nazi, and with a French upbringing to boot. For everyone's edification, it should be "le sex des fesses". You're welcome.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 7, 2011 9:40 PM

Mrs. Smith, instead of "le sex du le fesse", it would be "sex dans le cul".
/french grammar nazi

Posted by: SPAGHATTAH NADLE (formerly popejenm) at January 7, 2011 9:41 PM

Also "du" is already an amalgamation of "de le", so there would be no need for the "du le"...and "fesses" is feminine, so it would technically be "de la"... HOWEVER, you can't just have one "fesse", since it refers to the totality of your butt-cheeks, so it would be "de les", which in turn has to be amalgamated to "des".
/uber crazy french grammar nazi.

Posted by: SPAGHATTAH NADLE (formerly popejenm) at January 7, 2011 9:45 PM

Uriah Creep! You beat me to it! :D
DAHMN YAH, YAH FAHST TAHYPAHR!

Posted by: SPAGHATTAH NADLE (formerly popejenm) at January 7, 2011 9:46 PM

It was Firemarshal BILL.

Posted by: Ryan at January 7, 2011 10:29 PM

Uriah Creep! You beat me to it! :D
DAHMN YAH, YAH FAHST TAHYPAHR!

Posted by: SPAGHATTAH NADLE (formerly popejenm) at January 7, 2011 9:46 PM

Oui, c'est vrait, but you have the best name EVER.

/surfs over to Hyperbole and a Half

Posted by: Uriah Creep at January 7, 2011 11:23 PM

Apologies to Uriah Creep and SPAGHATTAH NADLE , I'm actually Spanish-learned, Mr Smith was the French major-- he only shouted out and I just typed it in as I thought it sounded. Thanks for the clarification. Now I can use it correctly the next time it comes up in conversation. Thank goodness I won't make that mistake again!

Posted by: Mrs Smith at January 7, 2011 11:52 PM

Un gros merci, Uriah! J'adore cet site, et ca me fait plaisir que tu l'aimes aussi!

Mrs. Smith, God forbid you mess up the phrase butt sex in polite french conversation...Travasty! :D

Posted by: SPAGHATTAH NADLE (formerly popejenm) at January 8, 2011 2:50 AM

"Its release date was pushed back, then removed, then reinstated, then pushed back, then removed, then reinstated, then pushed back, until it barely came out."

ahh, its that kind of movie. should be a hit, little bit of the in and out.

Posted by: idleprimate at January 8, 2011 9:29 AM

That's a shame this isn't as good as it was made out to be. Is it really setting the stereotype back? I was going to watch it with my stepdaughter as her father's homophobic views keep manifesting through her lately. (Even though this time a couple years ago he was cross dressing. So I guess it's not homophobia but homophobic cover.)

Posted by: Paultera at January 8, 2011 1:40 PM

See, I thought much the same thing about this movie. It has so much potential; a fantastic and intriguing con artist story and a truly romantic motivation. Great actors in the leads. This movie could have been great, a classic even.

But the writers thought, "You know what? Instead of making something with human emotion, let's make a slapstick comedy!"

And the way it treats gay people is bizarrely offensive. I don't see what the point of making a movie with such an interesting backstory into a throwaway, lightweight-fluff comedy was, and I'm deeply disappointed in the filmmakers.

Posted by: ChrsitianH at January 8, 2011 2:25 PM

As for the "he's just a guy who happens to be gay" point, I wish that's what was going on in this movie, but every few scenes the (poorly used) voiceover would go back to the point that he's gay.

I recall at one point the line: "Did I forget to mention? I'm gay. Gay gay gay gay gay."

I'm not saying he's wrong to be gay, I'm saying they made that the number one aspect of his character. It's just kind of shallow from what could otherwise be a really interesting and heartfelt love story.

Posted by: ChristianH at January 8, 2011 2:43 PM

I dunno, despite all that's been said, I thought the most important and most-emphasized aspect of his personality was that he was basically addicted to being a conman. Being gay began the addiction, the addiction landed him in jail where he met the love of his life, and the addiction kept this relationship from ever being what he really wanted it to.

Posted by: JohnnyBee at January 9, 2011 3:22 PM

Caspar, shouldn't that be "le sex du le fesse?" I'm not a grammar nazi, but I do hate it when people garble their romance languages.

@Mrs smith, good you're not a grammar nazi, because in any case, it would be "le sex de la fesse"

Sorry, Caspar, your originally funny joke is not funny anymore.

Posted by: james at January 9, 2011 7:34 PM

It would be nice to see how those hot in 2009 fared in 2010. Because hot is many times by definition fad which needs to get moved aside for the new fad to develop or becoming prominent. But nice selection nevertheless. Congrats.

Posted by: Babolat tennis at January 26, 2011 7:34 PM