« Review - Observe & Report | Main | Hot Blog Poll du jour »

April 10, 2009

Why Does...

... the idea of Ghosts of Girlfriends Past seem absolutely brilliant... and the movie they made seem like it is going to be absolutely horrible?

Posted by dpoland at April 10, 2009 09:14 PM

Comments

Two words: Matthew McConaughey.

Posted by: DeafBrownTrashPunk [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2009 09:30 PM

Years in development hell?

Posted by: alynch [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2009 10:45 PM

How is that first statement even reasonable? A version of A CHRISTMAS CAROL but with girlfriends? That's like a movie they'd be making in a movie parodying Hollywood. It's retarded.

Posted by: Devin Faraci [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 10, 2009 11:08 PM

I just saw the trailer for this tonight before Duplicity. Holy crap, is there anything from the movie I didn't see? I really hate trailers that show too much of the movie. It's bad enough when they show the only 4 funny parts of a film but unless this film is such a story telling gem that has untapped brilliance set to roll out in the back 50 mins, I think I just got a 3 min, 20 second explanation for why theaters are experiencing erosion.

I can't believe the idea hasn't been done before and yet somehow I feel like it already has.

Is it possible to make a good romantic comedy w/out a wedding? Has that happened in the past 20 years? First to the good romcom, 2nd san nuptials? I'd say 3rd in English but I think that's asking too much.

Posted by: Triple Option [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 01:46 AM

triple op, i think there are quite a few decent romantic comedies from the last 20 years without a wedding in sight: eternal sunshine, 10 things i hate about you, garden state, before sunset, high fidelity, as good as it gets, punchdrunk love, sideways, about a boy, groundhog day...i'm sorta fried but there must be plenty more

Posted by: leahnz [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 03:06 AM

Another Spring, another lame Matthew Mcconaughey flick comes and cleans up - why didn't they just call it 'Failure To Lose The Fool's Gold In Ten Days' and be done with it? We've come to expect this kind of dross from Mcconaughey, but Jennifer Garner really should know better. Lest you think i'm being unkind on Mcconaughey, i liked that earlier in his career, he would do movies like Amistad, Frailty, or Contact. But that was back in the days when he still gave a shit. Now he just shows up for one lame romantic comedy after another, deposits the check, and hits the beach. Can't say i blame him, i'd do the same.

Posted by: Dr Wally [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 06:10 AM

When McConaughey wants to act, he's pretty terrific in films like Contact and Frailty (arguably the best horror film of the decade?). Hell, I even love Sahara, as it's the kind of action film they don't make anymore - real stunts, real locations, creative set pieces with colorful character actors in supporting roles... wee!). Yes his romantic comedies have the tragic flaw of being his worst pictures but also his most successful ones. But I can forgive him that because I can make the choice to not watch them.

Posted by: Scott Mendelson [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 06:49 AM

..agree with many of the posters that the McConaughey smarm
factor is what makes this otherwise enjoyable-sounding rom-com look like dreck. Although we probably shouldn't discount the ickiness of Michael Douglas' Bob Evans impersonation.
Too bad. I really like Mark Waters (yes, even "Just Like Heaven"), and Jen Garner is a real sweetheart.
Why isn't Disney's "Earth" on the poll of nausea-inducing pre-summer flicks?
Is the Mouse House really serious with this thing? When I first saw the trailer--wasn't it attached to "Wall-E"??--I somehow got the idea that it was a one-day-only "event"(cynically) tied in to Earth Day.
I can't imagine why anyone would shell out the bucks to see something they can get for free 24/7 on the Discovery and National Geographic channels...and that would probably look a damn sight better on their hi-def TVs.
Shouldn't this be 35-40 minutes long and in IMAX 3-D?
Otherwise, there isn't a single wide release pre-"Wolverine" movie that I'm truly dreading. Even "The Soloist" has Downey and Keener.

Posted by: movieman [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 08:07 AM

A CHRISTMAS CAROL knock-off without Christmas. That's what passes for "bold and original" these days.

Posted by: Cadavra [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 10:06 AM

I haven't paid close attention to the ads I've seen, but I'm hazy on the premise. I assume the girlfriends aren't actually dead, right? At any rate, I guess it'll stand or fall on the cleverness of its execution. Waters could surprise us on that front, but I won't hold my breath.

Posted by: yancyskancy [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 10:29 AM

So funny, I wrote a treatment for a film with this Dickens structure a few years ago -- but with a Michael Bay-type director as the main character. The joke is that he's visited by a Bob Evans-type colleague who forces him to live in his crappy movies... the Pearl Harbor rip-off (past), Bad Boys (present) and The Island (future). The idea is that his characters are so broadly drawn, so awfully obnoxious, he can't relate with any of them. And so at the end he learns what character development truly is. Bay himself should be the one to direct it.

As here, as mentioned, is Michael Douglas in the trailer for "Girlfriends" doing Bob Evans.

Needless to say, I was kicking myself when I saw this.

Posted by: Crow T Robot [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 12:24 PM

(triple op, in case you read my 'good romcoms w/out weddings' list: my bad on 'sideways', i may as well have thrown in 'the wedding crashers' and 'four weddings and a funeral' so as to appear really mental! i shouldn't post when i'm so knackered))

Posted by: leahnz [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 02:09 PM

Thanks for the list, Leah. My brain was fried when I posted last night too. I seriously couldn't think of any and I think as Roger Clemens would say misremembering films w/wedding scenes when there weren't any.

Posted by: Triple Option [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 05:11 PM

That's actually quite clever Crow. T... I'd keep trying to develop that if you're in a position to do so.

Posted by: Scott Mendelson [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 11, 2009 07:41 PM

The flaw with that idea is, 'awfully obnoxious' people are exactly the type that Bay would relate to.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 12, 2009 02:58 AM

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?