Over the last few years the slacker set has invaded motion pictures and established a base camp in the romantic comedy genre. Some of the movies have turned into modern classics, with an endless stream of quoting and tie in merchandise for teenagers to wear. One of these movies was the 2009 movie I Love You, Man starring Paul Rudd (Knocked Up) and Jason Segel (Forgetting Sarah Marshall). In effect the movie is part of the current "slacker/striver" strain of the romantic comedy virus, but as it describes itself, it's a "bromantic comedy."
Pete (Rudd) seemingly has no friends, except his girlfriend and most of his female coworkers. With an impending wedding, Pete has a problem: He has no Best Man. As such, he decides to set out to find a best friend: involving a few gay men that think effeminate Pete is also gay, all leading to the meet cute with Sydney (Segel). The two instantly become friends and in true rom-com style spend all their free time together... falling deeper and deeper in bro-love.
As a romantic comedy there are many of the same pitfalls that plagues most movies in the genre, mainly being: Love and friendship like this is not instantaneous. Also, there's a love building montage set to "Tom Sawyer," and worst of all... two dimensional characters.
Jon Favreau is the worst offender here; as shown in movies like Swingers (1996), Favreau can do comedy, but here he is so abrasive there is little to no comedy... just... Favreau being an asshole. Rudd's character is just a loser, I'm sorry, but he is. For character's like Rudd's to work, they have to be more than just sad sacks. Tragically unhip, Pete is just a loser pretending to be cool... but the writers gave him so little real development he remains a loser acting cool. Then there's the opposite end of the spectrum in Sydney, a guy who is so hipster cool that he wears Ugg boots ironically, has a hybrid dog, and plays Rush songs. Again, there is so little characterization that Sydney is essentially what a 10 year old dreams they'll be like when they are nearing 30.
Bringing me to my biggest complaint with the movie: the script. I have seen just about the whole cast in other movies, even the back ground fillers pop up in most of the "edgy" comedy shows and movies. So I know they can do comedy and are all decent actors, leading the weakness of the movie to be shared between the script writers and the director, the latter being one of the former. There are some funny parts, but most of the movie isn't funny on it's own, laughs are only elicited because of Segel's over acting, the only redeeming part of this movie. The jokes are usually strung out longer than they should be, making them less funny than they were.
I heard this movie get hyped beyond belief, and I was a little let down. Segel and Rudd have both been in much better movies, so if you want a does of Segel or Rudd (or Segel and Rudd in some cases) check out most of the Apatow family tree. Though if you're looking for a few immature laughs and hip references check this out, but if you want a good comedy... don't.
Dr. Brooklyn says: PASS this movie (6/10)
No comments:
Post a Comment