psiloveyou4sm.jpg

Tonight, We Dine in Chick Flick Hell!

P.S. I Love You / Agent Bedhead

Film Reviews | December 23, 2007 | Comments (52)


Chick lit often, and quite justifiably, gets a bad rap for its seemingly endless permutations of young female city dwellers who, despite heinous bosses, meddlesome relatives, and romantic tension, eventually find serenity, sweetness, and light. The concepts often grow even more loathsome when the novels push themselves onto the film screen, and for every Bridget Jones’s Diary, audiences must cope with several other piles of weepy bullshit like Evening. As a clear addition to the latter pile, P.S. I Love You is fashioned upon a bestselling novel by Cecelia Ahern, who wrote this ode to chick lit at a very emotionally immature 20-years of age. Richard LaGravenese directs and co-writes the screenplay, and I expected better from the guy who transformed The Bridges of Madison County from a potboiler novel into a pretty good film. Unfortunately, P.S. I Love You suffers from a lazy, ineffective script and a completely unrealistic sense of how people actually speak to each other.

In order to enjoy this film, one must suspend disbelief from the rafters like a leprechaun by the clackers. You have to, unfortunately, put yourself in the place of the heroine and imagine what you’d want to have happen if your significant other has the audacity to die and leave you all by your lonesome. Talking smack about the film’s premise would generally qualify a film critic as a heartless bitch.

I am so totally OK with that.

Hilary Swank stars as Holly, a 29-year-old (ha!) New Yorker married ten years to dashing Irishman Gerry, played by the very Scottish Gerard Butler, who shows his kinder, gentler side after the primal bloodlust he displayed in 300. The protracted precredits scene shows the couple in a bitter row over something rather insubstantial, but the argument is intended to set up their relationship’s dynamics. As Holly tosses pillows and Gerry strategically avoids the fruits of his wife’s temper tantrum, the couple scraps over their tiny (yet rather posh) apartment, lack of disposable income, and the feeling that life hasn’t yet begun for the couple. This melodramic drivel couldn’t be more choreographed if this were a number from Riverdance, and the fight ends with the predictable slamming of doors. Then, of course, Gerry does a perfectly awful striptease (wearing suspenders and boxer shorts decorated with four-leaf clovers), and the obligatory hot, nasty make-up sex starts rolling through the meadow like a blarney stone. The entire scene functions as a very lazy method of telling us a whole lot of information in a short period of time, for after the opening credits roll, the movie opens two months later at Gerry’s funeral. Despite his almost perfect life and marriage, he has died from a brain tumor. Bless his little cotton socks.

As the young widow, Holly is entirely unsympathetic as a character. She doesn’t visibly mourn so much as continue pouting, and the filmmakers never let us forget that while the men in this film are perfect, the women are the ones with issues. Gerry, despite his fondness for Irish whiskey and his lack of abundant wealth, appears to be an utterly devoted husband who only wants to make his wife happy. It is also obvious that he is madly in love with his wife and puts up with her many neuroses, although it isn’t quite clear why the hell he bothers to do so. His hopeless romanticism continues beyond the grave, for during his illness, Gerry mustered up the time and mental acuity to write a year’s worth of letters to his wife. These letters, scheduled for gleeful monthly readings, are supposed to guide Holly through her first twelve months as a widow. This is supposed to be very sweet and thoughtful of him, because obviously, Holly can’t function without her husband’s daily advice and direction. However, these letters seems like a way for Gerry to keep controlling his wife’s actions, dictating her grieving process from the grave. Through Holly’s reveries, her husband also visibly hangs out in their apartment, and since Gerry is Irish, he carries around a guitar and sings a lot. Naturally.

Almost immediately after Gerry kicks it, Holly finds herself with the prospect of two suitors — both of whom are devastatingly handsome. Of course. As Daniel, Harry Connick Jr. reprises his Hope Floats character and adds a dash of Tourette’s syndrome. Connick actually creates a terrific character who, while slightly rude in his straightforwardness, actually approaches Holly with sincerity in a vain hope to bring her back to reality. Unfortunately, Holly doesn’t want sincerity, damn it. Actually, she doesn’t even know what she wants, and she never really has. She just wants another guy who’s too good to exist, which is where another charming Irishman enters the story (Jeffrey Dean Morgan and his naked ass). To complicate matters, Holly’s network of support, which includes her best friends Denise (Lisa Kudrow) and Sharon (Gina Gershon), mostly encourages Holly to follow her own ill-advised impulses. Gershon is woefully miscast as a dowdy matron, but Kudrow earns laughs as a cynical man-eater. As Holly’s mother, Elizabeth, the always wonderful Kathy Bates, is dreadfully underused until the final act, which is long after the audience has stopped taking the film seriously even as fluff film.

The filmmakers’ decision to cast Hillary Swank as the romantic lead only further devalues the worth of an Academy Award as an indicator of future value and acting versatility. Her critically acclaimed lead roles in Boys Don’t Cry and Million Dollar Baby highlighted Swank’s ambiguous sexuality to an obvious advantage. In P.S. I Love You, it doesn’t help that she’s manlier than her love interests, especially when she’s lip-synching Judy Garland tunes. Swank’s angular facial features and hardened physical features (push-up bra notwithstanding), along with her forceful acting style, don’t suggest the needed feminine vulnerability for the role. In addition, Swank lacks comic timing, and the harder she tries, the more obvious this shortcoming appears. Fortunately, many of her scenes also feature Gerard Butler (in flashbacks or as a vision), who oozes charm and testosterone from every follicle. However, the character of Gerry, who is a stock chick-flick fantasy character and is a complete waste of Butler’s talent. His Scottish burr is kinda distracting and quite unlike an authentic Irish brogue; but he is quite tasty to look at.

Watching P.S. I Love You was sorta like that one time I sat through an entire baseball game. Excuse me, how many innings are left? Oh … damn. The film weighs heavily in at 124 minutes and is split up incrementally between all twelve letters. Most of this time is spent working up to what are supposed to be tear-provoking scenes. And I hate that shit. Those audience members who do look forward to pulling out the carefully-stashed tissues will find little use for their precautionary measures. You might laugh a little. You definitely won’t cry. You will, however, wonder what the fuck is wrong with you for sitting in that theater.

Agent Bedhead (a.k.a. “Kimberly”) lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at agentbedhead.com.


Savages, The | My two front Pajibas





Comments

Nice review.

Blarney stone is Irish, not Scottish.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 22, 2007 8:52 PM

One of the best reviews of a romantic comedy ever.

Fortunately, many of her scenes also feature Gerard Butler (in flashbacks or as a vision), who oozes charm and testosterone from every follicle.

Yes, yes, he does. That said, I think I prefer Gerry with facial hair.

I like Hilary Swank, and I LOVE Gerard Butler. However, from the moment I saw the previews, I knew that it was dreck. Glad to know I called it correctly.

Posted by: Daphne at December 22, 2007 8:56 PM

Nice review.

I assume AB knows that the Blarney Stone is in Ireland, and alluded to it because of the ethnicity of the character. I love this site, but my fucking god does everyone have to one up the reviewers?

Posted by: Katie at December 22, 2007 9:40 PM

So I assume it's not worth sitting through the film for a glimpse of Jeffrey Dean Morgan's ass?

Posted by: Jen at December 22, 2007 10:10 PM

B-b-but Spike is in this. Couldn't you have at least called it a "tolerable" film?

Posted by: Shameless Buffy Fan at December 22, 2007 10:58 PM

Surely the presence of Gerard Butler is worth sitting through 124 minutes of Hilary Swank? I wasn't going to see the movie for her, anyway.

Posted by: Linda at December 23, 2007 1:02 AM

I hear ya Katie, the Blarney Stone joke was great. So was the baseball comparison, you have to sit through all 12 letters?! Just die already!

Posted by: racheee at December 23, 2007 1:35 AM

It annoys me that the "chick lit" genre incurrs such immense derision - sure, there's a lot of crap out there, but there's a lot of crap everywhere... and besides, what's the term "chick lit" meant to imply: that women like 'fluff and nonsense' and all other higher-quality books are "man lit"? Pffft.

I actually enjoyed this book. The book was sweet and light and good entertainment. It's a shame that didn't translate to the movie.

And I think that until a term is coined that is not derisive, it's rather insulting to lump all female-protagonist-who-lives-in-the-city-with-troubled-love-life-blah-blah stories into the "chick lit" category: eg Bridget Jones was a geat book/film, yet many dismiss its quality simply because of its genre.

Also, Agent Bedhead, this is not meant as a dig at you specifically, just at how female-oriented texts are positioned by society/critics/people generally. Your review was highly entertaining, as always.

Posted by: JJ McCLay at December 23, 2007 2:48 AM

They are really trying to pass Swank off as a female? Oy.

Sorry, but this type of flick needs a Meg Ryan type or that paradigmatic generic example that is Kate Hudson for it to "work."

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 23, 2007 5:55 AM

I actually considered going to see this movie...because of Gerard Butler, let's be honest, but now I'm not going to subject myself to the pain.

I prefer the books anyway.

Posted by: GroovyVic at December 23, 2007 7:42 AM

If not Hillary Swank, who?* Drew Barrymore, Winona Ryder and other candidates from an earlier generation could not manage a credible 29. I believe this review points to the extraordinary possibility Generation Next does not represent itself through neurosis. Perhaps they lack the imagination for it. Having been coddled by moron Boomer parents and fed a sickening diet of self-esteem and uselessness, Jessica Simpson is what passes for deep.



* Kevin Longrie can tell me I meant "whom?".

Posted by: Flea at December 23, 2007 8:00 AM

For me, Hilary Swank is the top female actor in the US, but that was because in the past she had been unafraid to take some pretty unglamorous roles that the star/image/conscious two-legged puff balls of Hollywood couldn't and wouldn't do. But the ability to act with some degree of believability is obviously no indicator that a person is equally talented in choosing projects. And this sounds like a film - I hope - that will be easily forgotten when she gets back to her usual stuff.

And if Agent Bedhead says its blarney stone, it's blarney stone. So feh.

Posted by: RW at December 23, 2007 9:06 AM

"...For me, Hilary Swank is the top female actor in the US..."
-------------------------------------------------

*jaw drops*

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 23, 2007 9:36 AM

Couldn't Katie Holmes have come out of the compound to talk from the side of her mouth for this movie? Sometimes it seems like Tom is so strict.

And I think that Chick Flicks are to women as Fart Comedies are to men. I don't necessarily think it's meant to imply that women like all the bad films and men like all the good ones. If that were the case, Rob Schneider would have no career.

Posted by: Mella at December 23, 2007 10:21 AM

"...For me, Hilary Swank is the top female actor in the US..."
-------------------------------------------------

*jaw drops*

-------------------------------------------------
Don't trip, BS. I think by "female actor", RW actually meant "female impersonator", which arguably, Hilary Swank is.

Posted by: Mella at December 23, 2007 10:23 AM

And I think that Chick Flicks are to women as Fart Comedies are to men. I don't necessarily think it's meant to imply that women like all the bad films and men like all the good ones. If that were the case, Rob Schneider would have no career.

Agreed, Mella.

that paradigmatic generic example that is Kate Hudson

Ha! Awesome, BSlim. I'm still waiting on the Afternoon Comment Diversion that lets us guess five actresses you actually like (Gina Gershon, notwithstanding).

Posted by: Daphne at December 23, 2007 11:38 AM

Mella, your comments were hysterical and spot-on. Swank is a tranny, God bless her.

Anybody remember the romance novel for teens by the same name from the 80s with Jeanne Tripplehorn on the cover ("P.S., I Love You", not "Swank Is a Tranny").

Posted by: samantha t at December 23, 2007 12:12 PM

I'm afraid I can't take a review seriously that refers to "The Bridges of Madison County" as if it is a POSITIVE addition to the Chick flick library.

Posted by: Maria at December 23, 2007 12:56 PM

Also, the blarney stone rolling through the meadow would be a more effective simile if it was not in fact attached to a rather sturdy castle.

Posted by: Maria at December 23, 2007 12:58 PM

Ick. When I die and go to hell, I know for a fact that Satan will have a special room for me to watch this annoying drivel for all eternity.

Posted by: Janey at December 23, 2007 3:01 PM

Chick flicks aren't the equivalent of men's fart comedies, they're pornography for women. Neither is high quality because fantasies just aren't all that realistic, unfortunately. I could personally stand to have a little more actual sex in the ones I watch, but hey, it all depends on the person. I'm a reasonably intelligent woman, but I enjoy a good chick flick, or even a crappy one now and then. I don't feel the need to justify it much. What, you've never watched porn?

That being said, this film looks like it would be terrible anyway. I still expect a little more out of my chick porno. Gerard Butler helps.

Posted by: Jenna at December 23, 2007 3:25 PM

What, you've never watched porn?
Posted by: Jenna at December 23, 2007 3:25 PM

---------------------------------------------

*gasp* I don't remember ever being so insulted, in my...this is an OUTRAGE!... How dare you madam?

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 23, 2007 3:32 PM

Let's see:

- Does it follow a formula?
- Is the formula well-known and easy to parody?
- Is it full of stereotypes?
- Could the plot happen in real-life?
- Are the characters too quirky, too weird or too perfect?

Then congratulations, you're watching Fantasy. Whether that's the bad-ass anti-hero who can take down 10 guys with a butter knife or the perky career woman who falls in love with the European baker who could model, you are not watching real life.

So just accept it and enjoy it for what it is. If you happen to like it.

Posted by: Fredo at December 23, 2007 4:06 PM

It's ok, two-legged puff balls have there place.

Posted by: RW at December 23, 2007 4:22 PM

And it is obviously somewhere over their.

Posted by: RW at December 23, 2007 4:23 PM

You have so completely nailed what I hate about movies like this. I think I love you.

Posted by: jvon at December 23, 2007 4:58 PM

Flea --

I think it's safe to assume that the only other actor who WOULD be able to pull off a movie like this, and at the same time appear to be 29 years old, is Reese Witherspoon.

I'm pretty sure she turned it down.

As for chick flicks being pornography, that is probably the best analogy ever. Have you seen The Wedding Date? I challenge any woman not to melt a bit when whenever Dermot Mulroney's lopsided grin appears. ANY WOMAN. Plus, it features Amy Adams. Hmph.

Posted by: Kitty X at December 23, 2007 6:17 PM

Hmmm. Guess you didn't like the movie. I LOVED it, but then I love the genre. I thought the book was not nearly as good as the movie; Richard LeGravenese actually actually added some dimension to the characters, especially the female ones.

Even if you don't buy the premise of the story, it's worth the time and money just to see Butler, Connick, Morgan and Marsden. Gerry Butler, especially, shines and makes you fall in love with his character.

Posted by: Suzy at December 23, 2007 8:10 PM

Y'know? Whether you enjoy a particular film or not depends on why you might go to the movies. If you're going to have some producer jump through hoops to depict the "reality" of life, then stick to flicks like "Private Ryan", and I'm not criticizing the movie. I've never seen it. It's just not my cup of tea. If you're going to put yourself on some guilt trip about some social injustice or God forbid some politically incorrect ideology then by all means stay away from this one. It's a beautiful film with beautiful, very talented actors, and I absolutely LOVED it, but then I was in the mood to be entertained. So sue me!!

Posted by: Micki at December 23, 2007 8:43 PM

Suzy, I'm not sure if you actually read the book if you have the audactity to say that the pathetic excuse for a movie is better...

Setting the film anywhere other than Ireland was bad enough, but erasing the 4 other men in her life (the quiet and supportive father, the best friend brother, the immature brother, and the stiff brother that actually helps her grow) was an absolute travesty. The book was conveluted beyond recognition to make this movie.

I LOVED this book. I'll admit it, I'm one of those women that love a good chick flick/chick lit anything. I'm not ashamed, but I am ashamed for the makers of the screen version. If I were the author of this amazing story of finding strength after the loss of a spouse, I'd be outraged. I could relate with Holly Kennedy in the book, not Hillary Swank's version of her thoug sadly. I thought almost every character, especially Holly, was so one dimensional.

I'm ranting.

To sum up: the movie was a complete and total waste of 8 american dollars. And Suzy? You're entitled to your opinion, just know you are effing nutso.

Posted by: Beckie at December 23, 2007 8:57 PM

Have you seen The Wedding Date? I challenge any woman not to melt a bit when whenever Dermot Mulroney's lopsided grin appears. ANY WOMAN.

I've already taken that challenge. Dermot did nothing for me. Actually, I thought that Jack Davenport was considerably more attractive.

As for liking rom coms, if you don't feel the need to justify it.....don't. I didn't get the sense that the review implied that those who like the genre was somehow less than intelligent. It sounds like some are defensive about it; who gives a damn either way? You're entitled to watch and enjoy what you want, I say.

Posted by: Daphne at December 23, 2007 10:05 PM

Kickass review title.

Posted by: Kris at December 23, 2007 11:21 PM

Beckie, thanks for the insult. It makes it very easy to disregard your opinion on anything.

Posted by: Suzy at December 23, 2007 11:51 PM

Let's just call fluff "fluff" and call it a day. Chick lit? Is fluff. Fart comedies are fluff. Anything in which you don't have to really fire up more than two brain cells, if that, to watch it, IS FLUFF.

You can tell about four seconds into a movie trailer, max, as to whether a film is going to challenge you at all. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, the answer is no, it's not. (Hey, I live in America.)

That being said, fluff has its place. When I was in grad school, I needed a steady diet of it because my brain was getting enough of a daily workout, thanks. Nowdays? Feaugh. (New word I made up, like fuck + bleaugh.) I need something that makes me THINK, dammit. Or at least keeps me so damn entertained, I don't even notice that it's completely unchallenging.

This flick? Just no. I'd rather run hot piano wire through my eyeballs. Or talk to Tom Cruise.

Posted by: Kathy at December 24, 2007 12:32 AM

There always has been, and there always will be differeing opinions particularly when a book evolves into a film, but to call someone effin' nutso because they happen to like it? C'mon Beckie, GROW UP. I'm sure the author was paid quite well for the rights to that book. If you're that happy with the darn book, then keep it by your bedside and read it again and again. Personally, I enjoyed the film much more than the book.

Posted by: Micki at December 24, 2007 12:44 AM

Guess I'm effin nutso too, since I enjoyed the movie more than the book. I did enjoy the book, don't get me wrong, but the movie brought so much more emotion to the story, especially with the lead male character. So, call me nuts, but thats jmho.

Ro

Posted by: Ro at December 24, 2007 2:49 AM

Wait - "Jeffrey Dean Morgan and his naked ass"? And James Marsters is in it?
Damn. Well, I hope somebody puts the relevant scenes on Youtube, because by the sound of it, this movie is a waste of good-looking men.
I think instead I'll rewatch a good dead husband/boyfriend movie. 'Truly, Madly, Deeply', anyone?

Posted by: tarn at December 24, 2007 7:17 AM

it's rather insulting to lump all female-protagonist-who-lives-in-the-city-with-troubled-love-life-blah-blah stories

The fact that you can get about twice as particular as that and still be describing nearly all of chick lit is the reason they're considered ridiculous.

and all other higher-quality books are "man lit"? Pffft.

Um... sword-and-sandal epics? I would think that's probably the 'manly man' equivalent of the chick lit genre and those aren't really treated with any more respect.

Posted by: twig at December 24, 2007 8:31 AM

Kathy: wouldn't a conversation with Tom Cruise be like one of the things you like in a movie; Completely entertaining yet mentally unchallenging all at once? dat guys crazy ya know, and in my experience, those are some of the most entertaining people to chat with!

Gerard is really reaching both sides of the demographic, rom-com for da ladies, gore and battle scenes for da guys, cudos to him.

Posted by: grooldog at December 24, 2007 10:03 AM

I haven't seen this movie yet, but I hardly think it would be much of a compliment to the movie to say it was better than the book. Unless it's a different PS I Love You from the one I skimmed through recently. The prose was incredibly, incredibly painful. Wooden. Childish. I sent passages to my friends, and we laughed about them. But maybe I should give it another shot - I can be either harsh or lenient with chick lit, depending on my mood. I just got the impression that this book was NOT one of the good contributions to the genre.

Posted by: Claire at December 24, 2007 10:15 PM

Anybody remember the romance novel for teens by the same name from the 80s with Jeanne Tripplehorn on the cover ("P.S., I Love You", not "Swank Is a Tranny").

Oh yes, I do. I cringe at the memory. I don't know how that book landed in my then-seven year-old hands.

Posted by: peej at December 26, 2007 12:23 AM

Spike is in this!!! with brown hair!!! and they made a Buffy reference- so I think those were worth watching the entire movie.

Oh and I love gerard butler and jeffrey dean morgan. However, it was alarmingly obvious how un-irish Butler's accent was, especially after they have Morgan on-screen.

And I think whoever did hair and makeup must HATE hilary swank, because she looked awful in EVERY single shot. and there were CLOSE-UPS!

Posted by: dene at December 26, 2007 10:09 AM

why oh why on earth did they get a scottish guy to do an Irish part, i cringe everytime i hear that whoefull attempt at an Irish accent. there are a few Irish actors in hollywood why not just get one of them (colin farrell!!, cillian murphy!! that guy from in america)instead of casting someone who does a worse accent than tom cruise in far and away and his was pretty fuckin bad!!

Posted by: Anon at December 26, 2007 4:40 PM

there was never a chance in hell that i was going to see this, especially after seeing the preview and watching swank trip while singing karaoke...ick, what chick flick movie HASN'T used that one yet? anyways, finding out that they were trying to pass her off as 29 and a plausible chick flick lead just solidified my dislike of the movie even further.

Posted by: citizen_cris at December 27, 2007 10:47 PM

I think Swank is hawt. I would not kick her out of bed! Oh, well don't care if my homosexual tendencies are coming to the fore. I'd hit it!

Posted by: Confused at December 28, 2007 2:54 AM

This movie looks repulsive. Not just bad, but hideous.

I found Pajiba ages ago by doing a search for reviews on a particular movie. It looks like several others found this site when this review was posted, and, seeing the film panned, came to its defense.

That's the only explanation, yep.

Posted by: amea_gari at December 28, 2007 6:34 PM

P.S. I'm dead.

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at December 29, 2007 8:16 PM

The guy from In America is Paddy Considine and despite the name I'm pretty sure he's not Irish.

Agree about bad Irish accents in films. One of the worst I've ever seen is Pierse Brosnan (I think the film was called Evelyn or something like that) and he's actually Irish, so obviously it's quite the acting challenge.

Posted by: Pencil at January 8, 2008 7:55 AM

need a movie today so i went back in the archives to get a take on this chick flick. the review is fine until the final paragraph.
you can knock the flick but leave baseball the hell alone. stick to what you know.

Posted by: snake at January 9, 2008 12:29 PM

Completely agree with Snake on the baseball comment. See, baseball gets a hell of a lot more interesting the more you learn about it, watch it and understand it. It gets downright fascinating.

Bad movies, however... Well, they just stay painful, and possibly turn hilarious over time.

Posted by: AD at January 10, 2008 5:38 AM

I cried. Many times.
But I also admit that having my husband die young is something I am terrified of, and I often wonder how I would cope. Much like Holly (didn't) I imagine.

Posted by: Dataceptionist at January 13, 2008 5:29 PM

OMG, I was so happy when i found out that Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer was in it. YAYAYAYAY....It couldn't possibly be THAT bad if he is in it.......He is sooooooooo buff...........I fell in love witht the book and having not actually seen the film I can't give a valid opinion. Bad movies can be good too for when you want to slag off movies with you mates.....or something like that.

Posted by: BUFFYLOVER at May 8, 2008 12:03 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.