Member Center

Failure to Launch indeed! | Sir Critic on Cinema
 

Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2006 > March > 10 > Entry

Failure to Launch indeed!

By Eric Robinette | Friday, March 10, 2006, 05:00 AM

Oh my god, I can’t stand it. This is just TOO easy!

I almost don’t need to rip apart Failure to Launch. The title practically does that all by itself.

Sure, there have been other titles that were easy targets: Nothing but Trouble. What’s the Worst That Could Happen? Heck, even Alfred Hitchcock knew he was taking a risk when he named his 1963 thriller The Birds.

But putting the word “failure� in the title virtually begs us critics to slam it. They might as well make the movie’s tagline “Pan me.�

So I’ll oblige.

This romantic “comedyâ€? is so leaden that only Superman couldn’t see through it. Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew McConaughey make attractive leads, but they’re not the highlight of their own movie. Oops.

Parker plays an intervention consultant hired by McConaughey’s parents because McConaughey is 35 years old and still hasn’t left home. Parker plans to pretend to like McConaughey to get him to strike out on his own.

So will the couple fall in love? Are cell phones in movie theatres annoying?

Actually, the problem isn’t so much that the plot is predictable. Most romantic comedies are. These are the more pressing problems: Director Tom Dey paces the movie so sluggishly that 90 minutes seem like 150, the screenplay huffs and puffs to work up some laughs, and the main couple is thoroughly overshadowed by the supporting players.

I enjoyed the loony antics of Kathy Bates (as McConaughey’s mom), Zooey Deschanel and Justin Bartha (the buddies/sidekicks) much more than Parker and McConaughey. Deschanel in particular has a unique knack for comic timing. She’s always fun to watch, making good movies like Elf better and bad movies like this one at least somewhat tolerable.

Even the attractive or funny actors can do little with a screenplay that resorts to animal bites not once, not twice, but THREE times. Did one of the writers know an animal wrangler or an animatronics technician?

Undoubtedly, some people will want to see this movie thinking it looks cute. But I have four words that should automatically erase any desire to see this mess.

Terry Bradshaw gets naked.

If that doesn’t work, nothing will.

Grade: C-

Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Reviews

Comments

By Allison

March 12, 2006 3:02 AM | Link to this

Oh man, to be reminded of Showtime is just too too traumatic. Owie. What a horribly horribly mediocre movie. If it was just plain bad, that would be one thing. But mediocrity cuts so much deeper. lol

By Sir Critic

March 11, 2006 1:56 PM | Link to this

SRCputt is quite right. I forgot about the mockingbird because that happens to Descshanel and Bartha, rather than McConaughey and his pals. Bad movies play with your memories in funny ways because one tries so hard to forget them!

By SRCputt

March 11, 2006 8:13 AM | Link to this

Tom Dey’s complete list of directing credits: Shanghai Noon, Showtime, and this. YIKES! All 3 are too slowly paced and too many cuts. Shanghai Noon in particular was hurt by poor editing of Jackie Chan’s action sequences. Showtime actually accomplished making Eddie Murphy seem lifeless. And now this. Why would anyone hire Dey again? (And why have I seen all 3 of his films?)

By SRCputt

March 11, 2006 8:09 AM | Link to this

Eric, there’s actually FOUR animal bites. The woodchuck, the dolphin, the lizard, and the mockingbird. And that’s what passes for humor in this film. SIGH.

By Allison

March 10, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this

Those 4 words have sealed the deal for me, although it didn’t take much. I have this “thing” for Bradley Cooper, but I think I’ll just stick to watching Alias reruns and maybe rent Wedding Crashers. :)
 

Things to do