« Underrated Actors & Actresses, Pt 2 | Main | Conservative Bastion Warner Indie Dumps Strangers With Candy »

October 07, 2005

In Her Flats

I don’t know quite what to tell you about In Her Shoes. It’s a good movie, but it falls well short of greatness. The performances are pretty perfect… but the characters aren’t special enough and their words not compelling enough to make them memorable. Curtis Hanson often makes lemons out of lemonade, but he can’t quite overcome the natural studio urge to make a movie about the audience wanting to grab (or emulate) Cameron Diaz’ ever-present ass.

I saw it, I digested it, I shat it out in light of films like The Constant Gardener and History of Violence and 30% of the titles at Telluride & Toronto – even Brokeback Mountain, which I didn’t love, but had to think about – not really worth picking over again.

There is something very prechewed about this film, even if Toni Collette is always fun to watch work. Diaz does what Diaz does best… and there is a reason she is a movie star. And Shirley MacLaine is an icon who gives herself over to the realities of age here, but whose journey is just plain “so what?”

When I saw the film, it was in the context of Oscar season and in that context, it was pricey like a Broadway show. And for that price, it was frustratingly uninvolving. To me, it would be like going to Broadway to see Saturday Night Fever: The Musical or Footloose: The Musical. Silly. I love Ain’t Misbehavin’ because it offered up Fats Waller, who didn’t have the exposure of a 20 year old smash hit movie. But to go to the theater for $100 a seat to eat baby food?

In Her Shoes is better than baby food. But it is soft and while nourishing, it is not a very satisfying meal... unless you have your jaw wired shut. But that doesn’t mean that if someone asks me to go see it with them this weekend, I will recoil in disgust. In fat, I’d be happy to have the meal again… as long as I can have a steak – or at least a nice piece of fish with some good fresh vegetables – for dinner.

Posted by poland at October 7, 2005 08:01 PM

Comments

Quick question.

Who was expecting greatness from this?

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 10:09 PM

It's too long and far from perfect, but I enjoyed it. Far better than most "chick flicks."

Posted by: Stella's Boy [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 10:11 PM

Might just be me but I can't see Toni Collete and Cameron Diaz as sisters. Sorry.

Posted by: Mark Ziegler [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 10:12 PM

Not just you. I had a hard time accepting that, but I was able to look past it.

Posted by: Stella's Boy [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 10:28 PM

Don't know, Blu... is talk of Oscar nominations or the invocation of "Terms of Endearment" an expectation of greatness?

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 10:33 PM

The sequel to Terms of Endearment really ruined it for me.

Posted by: PandaBear [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 7, 2005 10:51 PM

lemons from lemonade? It's sometimes more refreshing that way, David. loved The SIlent Partner & Wonder Boys and LA confidential (except the ending) so I have time for Curtis Hanson. In Her Shoes was a little unappetizing in places, but I can see why the perfs which catch Oscar sunbeams from the voters.

Except for Shirley MacLaine, Terms of End was the worst bit of undercooked food of my childhood. Tearjerking nonsense. Except I love Debra Winger and hope to see her around more.

Posted by: Lota [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 8, 2005 02:09 AM

Aww, Terms of Endearment is a classic! And MacLaine was fantastic. GIVE MY DAUGHTER THE SHOT!

I'm so looking forward to In Her Shoes. There hasn't been a big chick-flick wheepie in ages.

"Who was expecting greatness from this?"

Considering it's pedigree, quite a few I would think. And if it's as good as I think it's gonna be then a lot of people will indeed think it is. But I'll wait til I've seen the movie. Collette and MacLaine in the same movie = nirvana

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 8, 2005 02:42 PM

Seen the trailer and pre-release poster for "In Her Shoes"? They include the line "From the writer of 'Erin Brockovich' and the director of 'L.A. Confidential' and '8 Mile'." That screams SNOB! Fox dropped that line for the actual release.

The public is getting more and more savvy -- they will steer clear of any promotion that name-checks other movies. "Just Like Heaven" is the most recent example.

Posted by: Chucky in Jersey [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 8, 2005 06:48 PM

Chucky, I have to agree with you, even though I flat-out love "In Her Shoes." (Trust me: Whether you're male or female, if you've had to spend much of your life cleaning up the messes made by younger siblings, you will relate to this picture.) I'm not sure that many of the folks most likely to respond to "Shoes" ever saw -- or would want so see -- "8 Mile" (even though I enjoyed it, for somewhat different reasons). This ad approach makes as much sense as selling "The Lover" as "From the director of 'The Bear.'"

Posted by: Joe Leydon [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 8, 2005 11:54 PM

Chucky, why do you think name-referencing other movies by the same filmmakers is something that audiences are getting savvy to? It makes sense to me for the marketers to try to expand beyond the chick-flick crowd and hype Curtis Hanson as a director for all seasons (whether he is or not).

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 12:26 AM

That is one of the best and most used advertisements for movies. Sometimes people don't actually know who is behind a picture.

Posted by: Sanchez [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 05:41 AM

I wouldn't see this movie if I had a vagina.

Posted by: Josh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 05:57 AM

Being a director I have liked would make me want to see something I normally wouldn't really see. And since I am a huge fan of LA Confidential and Wonder Boys I will see this when normally I wouldn't.

Posted by: Angelus21 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 06:04 AM

I think that sort of advertising is good sometimes. Like, so you can say "well, they made THAT movie good so this might be too".

"I wouldn't see this movie if I had a vagina."

When you actually get a vagina and stop clearly being against "chick flicks" then come back and say that. I would believe you then. But alas, you don't have a vagina and you sound as if you hate chick flicks. So...

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 06:36 AM

Not just that, sounds like he hates vaginas.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 06:40 AM

Thanks Camel for really getting into my one liner. Feels really fantastic to have a little joke so carefully analyzed by such a genuis like you. But I really got to tell you. This might hurt your virgin ears so be ready. I'm warning you. Most guys f-ing hate movies like this. Like really hate them and would rather chop off a testicle than see a movie like In Her Shoes. Yes, its true. And testicles are, you know, the things men have. Not females. I know you have never seen a pair since you hate men and all that they stand for and would only open your heart and your body to women. But its something you should experience. Would help you and your really careful analysis out in the long run. Now be a good girl and start cleaning the dishes and making some pot roast.

Posted by: Josh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 08:10 AM

Chick flicks are exactly that. Movies made for chicks.

I don't see how females can get offended that guys really don't like those kinds of movies.

You don't see females flocking to action movies or sport movies. I'm sure most women weren't getting excited about the Transporter sequel.

Posted by: Bruce [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 08:22 AM

I'm going to talk to Fox tomorrow about getting "I wouldn't see this movie if I had a vagina" into the pull quote rotation. But they may want to change it to "The only thing better than seeing In Her Shoes is having sex!"

Posted by: David Poland [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 08:29 AM

Do I get royalties, Dave???

LOL.

Posted by: Josh [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 08:33 AM

I do have one and I'm not seeing this. Cameron Diaz just annoys me when I see her. Even off screen.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 05:24 PM

When print ads, posters and trailers name-check other other movies, it's a hint that the studio thinks "These movies are crap". I found 7 pictures in this weekend's national top 20 that resorted to name-checking.

Even upmarket and arthouse fare has fallen into this trap. "Separate Lies" is being promoted as "From the writer of 'Gosford Park'."

Want to reverse the box-office slump, Hollywood? Stop name-checking.

Posted by: Chucky in Jersey [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 07:17 PM

That's silly. I would have no interest in In Her Shoes EXCEPT as a movie from a respected director. Nobody ever saw a name-referencing ad and said "from the writer of...? screw them, let's stay at home".

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 9, 2005 10:26 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?