He's Just Not That Into You (2009)

Despite my long-standing feud with the chick flick genre, I refuse to give in to the desire to use the un-clever and obvious comment that this film’s title sets itself up for. If you’re thinking of popping in a heart-warming and mushy romantic comedy, this is not the film you want. Sure, there’s plenty of fluff, but this is a sunny path with plenty of rocks in it.

The hub of this ensemble is Gigi (Ginnifer Goodwin), a slightly scatterbrained single who reads far too much into the actions and words of the men she dates. She’s in love with the idea of being in love and is repeatedly crushed when things don’t work out the way she thought. An off-the cuff conversation with a bartender named Alex (Justin Long) leads to an odd friendship. Alex tells it like it is and illuminates Gigi to how guys work when they are or are not into a girl. This leads to Gigi constantly calling Alex for advice in a variety of situations.

Alex’s friend Connor (Kevin Connolly) is the exact opposite. He’s hung up solely on his long-time best friend Anna (Scarlett Johansson) but is afraid to tell her how he feels about her. She’s not into him in quite that way. Anna also happens to be in the early stages of an affair with Ben (Bradley Cooper), who is married to Gigi’s co-worker Janine (Jennifer Connelly). Their marriage is on rocky grounds to start but Janine is desperate to try and save it. Between Gigi’s new intel on how men avoid commitment and Janine’s desperation, their co-worker Beth (Jennifer Aniston) decides to break up with her marriage-phobic boyfriend Neil (Ben Affleck).

As you can tell, there is an awful lot going on at one time in this film. Bouncing back and forth between the storylines doesn’t give you whiplash but it certainly makes for a frustrating viewing experience. Gigi and Alex are fun to watch because Alex is almost always spot on with his observations about men and desperate single women. Gigi on her own is a tad annoying though. The slow destruction of Janine and Ben’s marriage is powerful but not exactly pleasant to watch, what with all the fluff the other sub-plots hold. Conner and Anna are equally tough to watch because he’s such a stoop for a girl who will probably never reciprocate. Finally, Beth and Neil serve little purpose whatsoever other than to add commentary about long-term, unmarried couples.

If the point of the film is merely to make observations about a select few relationship scenarios, then it succeeds. But, if that is the case, then it’s a pretty cheap way to provide entertainment and the construct is absurd. It’s bad enough that there are eight main characters plus Drew Barrymore thrown in to boot. This forces He’s Just Not That Into You is forced to split up its 129-minute run time a little too much. Some characters are more developed, leaving others feeling flat and (as with Beth and Neil) mostly unnecessary.

Part of me wants to blast the film for having all of the characters connected in one way or another but I loved both Magnolia and Crash, which use a similar six-degrees-of-separation approach to tell an engrossing story. Perhaps it’s the genre in general or the fact that some of the characters turned me off that prevented me from being fully engaged in the story. All I can really say is that this film lacks that special quality that successful ensemble films possess.

Women are the target audience for this film. I am positive of that. With that in mind, it will likely strike a chord with a lot of women who have been through frustrating and uncertain relationship. Men will enjoy the film for Alex’s spot-on assessment of relationship but they will also cringe at the chick-flick cop-out that comes at the end.

He’s Just Not That Into You suffers from trying to hit too many issues. It probably needs another hour for all the characters to truly develop properly but who would really want to watch a three-hour chick flick? I sure don’t. Despite some clever dialog spread throughout, there isn’t much special about this film and its sugary, chick-flick marketing betrays the emotional darkness that lies within its reels.

RATING: 2.5 out of 5

Shakespeare in Love** (1998)

Plain and simple, there are too many fruitballs in the Academy. There is no reason for this movie to have won Best Picture over Saving Private Ryan, one of the most gripping, moving and emotionally jarring films ever made. Instead of choosing a clearly superior film loosely based on a true story full of bravery during one of mankind’s most horrific hours, the Academy decides to honor a piece of pure fiction taking place in an idealized vision of the Renaissance, filled to the brim with historical inaccuracies. And pleather.

Of course, Shakespeare in Love isn’t trying to be accurate in anything it does, which, I guess, is the beauty of it. Just like theatre, the film is flooded with convenience and the use of deus ex machina. There’s plenty of ham to go with the overabundance of cheese as well.

Instead of the drab garb of a repressed middle and lower class, the streets are filled with vibrant colors and fabrics that may or may not have existed back then. The Bohemian lifestyle of living for love despite wretched conditions is perpetuated and glorified in an all too unrealistic way here, and the Renaissance period is whitewashed, where even the potential of plague and illness don’t muck up the fluffy white clouds on the horizon for our characters.

But don’t get me wrong. For what it is, Shakespeare in Love is a solidly good film. It’s exactly the kind of thing its audience is looking for- a fictitious love story set up ambiguously during real events (a la Titanic and Pearl Harbor) with all the frills of a fancy theatre fruitball jolly-fest. And for delivering what the audience wants, it’s a good film. Good costuming and some good camerawork too, which is why it has such a good rating.

As far as my personal tastes go, this one is a dud. But, since I try and keep things in a cinematic perspective, I’ve got to give credit where credit is due, even though the thought of Shakespeare in pleather gives me the chills.

RATING: 3.5 out of 5