web
counter
 

Love Makes You Do Some Crazy Sh*t

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (23)



serious_moonlight01-(2).jpg

It hurts when you lose someone you love. Whether they die or simply leave you for someone else, it leaves an empty place in your heart. You would do almost anything to bring them back. And some people fill that hole with drugs, alcohol, greasy food, meaningless sex with Lindsay Lohan, whatever. But what you shouldn’t do is make a terrible movie. I miss Adrienne Shelly as much as you do, but this isn’t going to bring her back or honor her memory. Serious Moonlight feels seriously unfinished. It’s an uneven and jagged screwball comedy that is fiercely piecemeal; cloying chunks of overwhelming melodrama stuck like trod-on gum to an unfunny romantic stock comedy. It may have succeeded as a stage play, but as a movie it simply feels sloppy, stumbling through the panes of completely different films before going headfirst into a brick wall ending. Adrienne Shelly showed so much promise with Waitress, and it’s truly depressing to realize that like so many other fine young actors and actresses, what will stand as her final testament is a shoddy shade of her true potential.

Louise (Meg Ryan), a successful high-powered lawyer, decides to surprise her advertising exec husband Ian (Timothy Hutton) a day early at their country house. Unfortunately, Ian was planning on leaving Lou via letter then head on a jet plane to gay Paree with his new young chickie Sara (Kristen Bell). Lou doesn’t take too kindly to being left, so she knocks Ian out with a flowerpot and duct tapes him to a chair, holding him hostage until he loves her again. Ian shouts and cajoles and berates Lou while she foolishly tries to beg and plead for him to remember their love. At one point, Sara comes around looking for Ian, and Lou tells her she can have Ian and that she understands, but she wants to have a last little talk with him. Lou realizes just how fucking stupid this whole situation is, and Ian obviously lies and tells her he loves her, and she lets him go. Ian shouts at her, flees the room. Lou knocks Ian out with a flowerpot. Again. Because apparently Wily E. Coyote bought ACME out of anvils. She then duct tapes him to a toilet, because toilet is a funny word. We know this, because for the remaining hour plus of the film, they will take every opportunity to say the word toilet.

Now, duct taped to a toilet, Ian is assuredly going to fall back in love with Lou, right? And since it worked so well the first time, Lou fires off every play in the ol’ get-em-back lady playbook. She bakes him cookies, shows him their wedding slides, plays him a song on a guitar, dresses all sexy, and also punts on fourth down. While Lou gets extolled for her supposed independence and incredibleness and intellect, she basically pulls off a retarded scheme that reeks so strongly of desperate middle-aged woman, there were actually small Oxygen Network programs trolling in her wake. What rational person honestly believes that by kidnapping someone and holding them hostage when they are due to be on an airplane to Paris the next day is going to truly work? And for that matter, who the hell keeps slides in chronological order of their love life in the Digital Age? But I guess Microsoft PowerPoint really doesn’t have a template for shitty romantic ploys.

Oh, but the film isn’t done delving into the dumbassery. Because you know what’s logically going to happen right? Lou leaves to go buy ingredients to cook Ian a romantic dinner and who should show up? Exactly. A guy pretending to be the guy who mows their lawn (Justin Long) breaks into their house and beats the shit out of Ian before robbing the place. When Lou comes home, he knocks her out, fondles her on the floor in front of Ian and then busts up the joint with his cronies. What the double-stuffed fuck? Not only does this make less sense than trying to kidnap your paramour to force them back into your life, but it sends the movie into really disturbing territory. Justin Long channels a creepy dirt bag version of Keanu Reeves, who philosophizes about the true meaning of love in between whomping the ever loving fuck out of Ian and molesting Lou. Even when, inevitably, Sara comes rolling on in to confront Ian for abandoning her at the airport, the lawnboy feels compelled to get freaky all up on Meg Ryan. She’ll buy a Mac already, for Christ’s sake.

The entire piece culminates in what more or less becomes a single or divorced middle-aged woman’s romantic fantasy. The ultimate finale is so painfully stupid and overwrought and devoid of thought, my only immediate thought was Adrienne Shelly had just dashed a place filler to get to later before her untimely homicide. You would have to be desperately and hopelessly romantic to see the finale as plausible, much less enjoyable. And when I say hopeless, I mean, your ovaries have desiccated and you’re through your second pint of ice cream thinking about getting a third cat while watching the fourth season of “Designing Women.” Perhaps strangest of all is that because of the unusual casting, the entire project feels like some sort of fan fic alternate telling of French Kiss. Instead of going to France to get back Timothy Hutton from his new love and falling for sleazy comedian Kevin Kline, Meg Ryan ties Timbo up before he can ever get on the plane, forces him to fall back in love with her by getting her ass knocked the fuck out by sleazy comedian Justin Long. Qu’est-ce que c’est? Merde.

The casting is unfortunate. Meg Ryan is too pretty to be that desperate. If it were Kirstie Alley or someone more meaty and able to go as crazy as necessary, it might have worked. Instead, Meg Ryan runs around emoting like someone was sitting on the remote that controlled her personality. Weirder still, she seems to be aping director Cheryl Hines’ performance on “Curb Your Enthusiasm.” Timothy Hutton reminds me of a suave Tim Robbins, and though he’s excellent in “Leverage,” he’s just all right here. Kristen Bell seems really, really intent on only playing painfully adorable bombshells who beg desperately to get with losery schlubs. Justin Long is horribly miscast. The dude has been steadily impressing me with his role choices lately — no matter how dreadful the movie, he manages to elevate beyond it. But here, man, he’s woefully wrong for the part. I couldn’t help but think: Oh! Here’s the movie Chris Evans meant to be in, not that godawful Tennessee Williams atrocity. Speak of speaking ill of the dead.

Serious Moonlight makes no sense as a movie. It really felt like attending a wake for someone who died too young. It made me feel terrible Adrienne Shelly isn’t going to be around to do anything better. Making the movie was something painful but cathartic everyone needed to get out of their system. They grieved, and now it’s best to just put it past us and move on with our lives and remember Adrienne for the good times. And forget about this tragedy as soon as we can.









Princess and the Frog, The Review | "Glee" S1/E13 "Sectionals"













Comments

Great review. I was really enjoying the way you ripped this ridicuous movie apart. And then I got to this:

"The entire piece culminates in what more or less becomes a single or divorced middle-aged woman’s romantic fantasy."

Could you be more fucking patronizing to middle-aged women?
Isn't the whole "a woman can't be sane unless she's in a relationship" thing what we here on this site typically hate about Hollywood?

Posted by: PaddyDog at December 14, 2009 5:02 PM

amen paddydog

Posted by: jack at December 14, 2009 5:13 PM

Hmmm, I, on the other hand, was most alienated by this part:

The casting is unfortunate. Meg Ryan is too pretty to be that desperate. If it were Kirstie Alley or someone more meaty and able to go as crazy as necessary, it would have worked.

What the fuck?!! Pretty chicks are never insecure and needy??! It's only fat chicks???! (sidebar, by the transitive property, does this mean "more meaty" chicks can't be pretty? fun times!!!)

Posted by: coveredinbees at December 14, 2009 6:23 PM

Double amen, paddydog. I am a single, nearing middle age woman and I don't think my romantic fantasies are much different than when I was 20. I'm also fucking ecstatic to be single, thankyouverymuch!

Posted by: gelis at December 14, 2009 6:25 PM

Thanks for the support y'all. I'm always a little nervous when my Sandy Vagina personality shows up, but this one just got to me.

As an aside to coveredinbees, I think Elin Woods and her recent exploits with a very expensive golf club are pretty solid proof that thin, pretty, married women can easily qualify for the psycho route.

Posted by: PaddyDog at December 14, 2009 6:49 PM

I just have to say, this line cracked my shit up:

Meg Ryan runs around emoting like someone was sitting on the remote that controlled her personality.

hee!

Posted by: badkittyuno at December 14, 2009 7:43 PM

I'm with you, PaddyDog. A more appropriate, less insulting line would have been "sexually frustrated, emotionally immature woman." And, just because a woman is attractive doesn't mean she's not desperate. Along those same lines, just because a woman carries around a little more weight on her frame doesn't mean she is desperate.

Posted by: stardust at December 14, 2009 8:09 PM

I have to agree...the digs at women in this review were slightly ugly, and trite. Are women not worth the same respect accorded other groups, whether racial, religious or concerning gender?

Posted by: mae at December 14, 2009 10:45 PM

Brian, you ordinarily nail it but I think that you screwed it up with this review.
The comments from our female readership have already stated my thoughts.
I'm a bit surprised, sir.

Posted by: Spender at December 14, 2009 10:58 PM

OH MY GOD.
this is why i stay away from FREAKIN WOMEN.

Posted by: gp at December 14, 2009 11:29 PM

Well, I liked the fcat that the whole movie was spoiled for me. This way it saves me a lot of time and heartache

Posted by: Candy at December 14, 2009 11:32 PM

OH MAN! I completely forgot that movies mirror real life in every way, shape and form! Fuck! Here I was thinking that there are tropes and types and expectations that filmmakers use to get their points across as concisely as possible and by playing on the audiences' inherent biases more information can be passed along to the viewer!

Damn Prisco. How could you slip in your role of being the edgy reviewer of films on a site where opinion is anathema and analogies to get your points across are verboten. You dumb motherfucker, don't you realize you're supposed to write your reviews to appease every single one of this site's readers? I never would have expected something crass out of you. You are always the most gentle of writers; why, up until now, you've never offended anyone or written anything controversial. I just really think you have to get back to making shit up instead of telling us how the movie affected you.

It's not like you're a critic or anything.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at December 15, 2009 12:01 AM

JakesAlterEgo, no need to get all wound up there buddy. Even Prisco is capable of a flub. In this case, he aimed for a target and missed that fucker by a mile. Pinpoint accuracy is important if you consider yourself a slick-as-shit wordsmith, and he usually is.

But I have to agree that some of the statements up there were too blanket. I'm a middle age woman and placing my 'glad' ass in a seat for that film - even figuratively - is flat out foolhardy.

If you take out the poorly crafted insults to an imagined target demographic I think we'd have a great review. However - the link between the Meg character and Prisco's vision of who the audience for this romantic dreck might be was too poorly defined and came off as weird, bitter and bashy.

Whatever, his work generally rocks and I'd be an idiot to go freaking out over a verbal misstep that comes across like he edited out the wrong connective sentence. If he actually thought so poorly of women in general, he'd be writing for the wrong damned site, am I right?

Posted by: replica at December 15, 2009 3:52 AM

If he actually thought so poorly of women in general, he'd be writing for the wrong damned site, am I right?

Yes. Replica: always the voice of reason that states my thoughts better than I ever can.

Posted by: stardust at December 15, 2009 7:24 AM

VERY eloquently stated, Replica.

I'ma throw in my own $0.02: You know, I am very rarely offended, much less easily so, but the statements mentioned by PaddyDog and coveredinbees (as well as a couple of other things here and there) above also gave me pause. That's unusual for me, and it left me with a bad taste in my mouth, and all the eye-rolling, "typical women" bullshit in the world isn't going to make it go away.

I normally love Prisco's reviews, and have upon occasion wondered if we share a brain, or at least a little DNA. Am misinterpreting the intent behind those statements? I don't really see another way to interpret them. Do I simply chalk it up to Brian having his Surly-Os before writing this review? Out of respect for the writer, given his normal level of discourse, I can't do that. So what do I do?

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at December 15, 2009 9:09 AM

First of all, thanks Prisco for the warning. I know to steer clear of this movie, and I really appreciate knowing that in advance.

Second, I'm commiserating with you that this has been added to Adrienne Shelly's legacy, because from your description, it sounds terrible! I'll just forget this ever existed, as you rightfully suggest.

Third, yeah, I'm gonna have to join my fellow ladies in saying I think some of your review was not up to your usual standards. Yes, I absolutely get the stereotype of the unfortunate,"romantic" woman you were striving for, but I think stardust's description was more accurate. And I agree with the ladies that suggesting a plumper actress would be more believable as ridiculously obsessive over losing her husband, only furthers stereotypes that we can't afford to support.

Posted by: tamatha at December 15, 2009 10:05 AM

Meg Ryan stars in certain films as certain types. She is the lovable (if increasingly not as) adorable girl that the above-average-looking relatively normal guy has a chance with. This is what she does and it is almost exclusively what she has always done.

Now, in this film, she goes against that type by losing the lovable-ness. And, this is without seeing the film but parsed strictly from Prisco's review, the problem here is that the film itself isn't against type. It's supposed to be romantic while presenting us with a terrible version of someone we normally identify as the good girl who should get the guy. It's miscasting. It's miscasting on a fundamental level.

As for the line about the middle-aged women. Prisco doesn't state that it's THE fantasy of the single or recently-divorced. It's A fantasy. And in the context of the rest of the review, you see that he's talking about a specific type of bitter person. A type. Not the only type of woman out there. A very specific subset.

I just don't get the reaction from reading a review for a guy who's written for this site for so long in the same manner. He's crass, he's an asshole, he's actually kind of unlikeable in his writing. But he's not some flaming misogynist looking to make sure that every woman in every film is barefoot and pregnant. He wrote something on the assumption that people would understand a sentence about a clearly miscast actress playing a clearly fucked up character in a poorly written film is not a blanket indictment of women.

And he assumed wrong.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at December 15, 2009 12:24 PM

Let me propose a question for all the critics:

If you are currently single, are you more desperate or less desperate then you were 10 years and 20 pounds ago?

I know I am.

Posted by: DarthVlader at December 15, 2009 2:56 PM

If you are currently single, are you more desperate or less desperate then you were 10 years and 20 pounds ago?

I know I am.

Well gosh, I'm willing to bet that most folks are more desperate or less desperate than they were then, Darth.... (/gentle tease that I simply couldn't resist)

Posted by: meaux at December 15, 2009 6:44 PM

Too pretty to be desperate? I don't think I'm the first person to tell you that beautiful people are extremely insecure. The fact that Meg Ryan has had some obvious work done on her face serves the part well, too; it shows she's not happy with herself.

Posted by: Bizarro Sofía at December 15, 2009 10:13 PM

Hmmmmm....when I was 20 and 93 pounds with a gigantic rack I would have done anything to make go away, I was a right hot mess of insecurities. I didn't know how to flirt, guys talking to me terrified me, I just wanted to take my skateboard and hide in my room.

I like fat and middle aged. Like it very much.

One word, frito sacks. I have been young and thin and old and fat and when the person you love cheats it hurts to the same depth of flesh penetration.

I'm sorry, did I miss the memo where the anatomic potluck called Meg Ryan gets a Lifetime Perky Pass and never has to actually act in a movie again? Pish Posh! Next you'll want Katie Couric to do News N'Stuff instead of showing you scopes of her poop chute and lobbing coconut covered Snoballs To Sarah Palindrone. Who's too CUTE to be insane. You betcha!

Ask Halle Berry if cute chicks get cheated on and have to reach deep for the sanity backup. Oh Drama.

Posted by: Stacy D at December 15, 2009 10:35 PM

Real life world =/= romantic comedy world. I don't know what more you guys want. Seriously. Yes, beautiful women can be desperate and plump people can be happy as fuck, but in real life, running off to NYC to be with the voice you heard on the radio is fucking psychotic. It's a goddamn film review about a goddamn genre of film that is unrealistic, but consistently unrealistic.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at December 16, 2009 12:30 AM

Jake - You are getting too riled up (I know, I know, it's Pajiba, we're all about getting riled up, blah, blah, blah). I'm afraid you're going to start frothing at the mouth soon.

Look, those of us who have objected to parts of Prisco's review have actually remained quite calm and have rationally pointed out our objections. You, my dear, are starting to remind me of that clip of Hitler from Inglorious Basterds where he keeps slapping the table and yelling, "Nein!"

Deep breath and let's just agree to disagree on this one, shall we?

Posted by: tamatha at December 16, 2009 10:01 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time