“How Do You Know?” is a Complete Waste of Time
This review was written December 24th, 2010 & “How Do You Know” is coming out on DVD March 22nd
How do you know when a romantic comedy is God-awful? Well one could easily look to James L. Brook’s new film, How Do You Know, as a source of reference. Over this year of films, I don’t think I have seen a picture that is as indecisive as How Do You Know. This is the rare film that exceeds all standards of boredom and just plain stupidity.
In almost a “Babelistic” manner James L. Brooks tells four different stories that all eventually intertwine. It’s odd because not one story has a redeeming payoff. But the most bizarre fact of the film is the cast. Talented actors, ranging from Paul Rudd to Reese Witherspoon to even Jack Nicholson, can’t even save this flop of a film.
We’ll start with Lisa (Reese Witherspoon), she’s a 31 year-old, USA women’s’ softball player (though we never really see her playing softball?), who constantly tries to reason with her mistakes. Apparently age 31 is too old for women’s’ softball, because as the new line-up comes up online, she is nowhere to be found. So after cut from her beloved team, she goes job hunting! Just kidding, that would talk to much work, so she finds baseball star Matty (Owen Wilson) and after a couple dates she moves in with him. Matty is the stereotypical star-athlete; cocky and promiscuous. Despite those less-then redeeming values, Lisa falls head over heals for him.
Soon after our encounter with Lisa ends, we meet George (Paul Rudd). George is in his late 30’s and is getting indicted for tax wiring. On top of his steadily growing problems, his father, Charles (Jack Nicholson), is constantly pressuring him with details of the investigation. For all the time these two characters are on screen, we never really care about their complications or life-deciding problems. But since this is a romantic-comedy George needs to find that one and only girl that will change his life forever (you’ve seen it before). Lucky him he finds Lisa, unlucky for us were stuck with an unbalanced and drastically incohesive piece of film-making.
The film then drags us into situations that are exceedingly pointless and have no redeeming value. We receive monologues about love, friendship and honesty that never really touch our hearts and sadly never seem to end. We are also given distracting plot points, that don’t obtain our interest, but merely bore us. The end result is an insultingly long film, which really needs more time in the editing room.
Has anyone heard of films such as Broadcast News, As Good As It Gets and Spanglish? In my mind those are all great films, so I know that James L. Brooks is a talented writer/director. But How Do You Know doesn’t feel like an original Brooks effort, instead in the midst of the holiday season Columbia Pictures has rushed yet another romantic-comedy that doesn’t land.
The performances are still solid, though not as effective due to the sitcom dialogue they’re given. Paul Rudd is so fantastic at playing those quirky, yet very charming characters and How Do You Know is no exception. Reese Witherspoon (where has she been?) is very cute and lovable as the problematic Lisa. Owen Wilson probably gives the best performance in the cast as the narcissistic, womanizer, who believes he’s in “love”. However watching Jack Nicholson on screen (who I love) was painful. To say Nicholson was overacting would be an understatement. It could be because of the weak dialogue, but I found his character to be constantly annoying.
How Do You Know is a film that starts to take us on a journey, but never really lifts off. It merely walks in its’ own shoes of convoluted plot points. There isn’t a consistent tone, a sense of romanticism or even a script that could conjure up our emotions. It’s a pity that we have a director on our hands whose’ best work may be behind him.
D
✭/✭✭✭✭
Notes: Rated PG-13 for sexual content and some strong language (on appeal/re-edit).; Originally rated R for some language, 121 minutes.
You can get all my reviews at http://dukeandthemovies.com and follow me on twitter @DukeSensation
11 Comments
That expression on Reese’s face on that first photo pretty much sums up my sentiment about rom-coms. Why in the world can’t anyone make a good one these days???!
Definitely a skip.
The biggest question mark to me is how exactly did this movie cost $120 million? There is no action or CGI. This is probably the most expensive rom-com in history, making it an incredible huge box office bomb.
Four words for you Castor: Wilson. Nicholson. Witherspoon. Rudd
Actually, with the additional $30 million marketing cost. It cost $150 million to make and market.
Reese was paid $15 million for the film. $12 million to Jack Nicholson, $10 million for Owen Wilson and director James L. Brooks each, and $3 for Paul Rudd. That’s $50 million in salaries plus $70 million for the production/post-productions/re-shoots, and such.
I’m not a fan of James L. Brooks. For some reason, I could never get into them though the one I haven’t seen in its entirety is “Broadcast News” which seemed more interesting that the other films I’ve seen.
I don’t like “Terms of Endearement” and was annoyed by “I’ll Do Anything”. I hate “As Good As It Gets”, that’s right. It’s shit. It’s fucking shit. “Spanglish” sucked! I try not to be totally opinionated on him since he is responsible for giving the Wilson Brothers, Wes Anderson, and Cameron Crowe their break. I do respect him as a producer.
I’m still not a fan of his work as a I wondered how in the hell did he spend all of that money. Then I heard about the reports of the re-shoots Brooks had to do along with the long time of editing where he is so meticulous about. That was weird considering that Terrence Malick is notorious for last-minute cuts yet keeps the budget of his films low. I’m baffled by how a rom-com can cost that much.
It’s ridiculous. If I was the head of Sony, I’d fire everyone for this mess. And what the hell happened to Reese Witherspoon? She used to be pretty good and now, she sucks.
Yea terrible what has happened to Reese. She is so much more talented than this but she is really coasting by since her Oscar. Even taking the completely overpriced actors’ salary out of the equation (When was the last time Reese had a major hit to warrant a $15 million tag?), it’s completely ridiculous that a rom-com would cost $70 million to make.
I know re-shoots can be costly but this is failure at every levels, from the producers not being able to keep tab of expenses to the director not knowing what he is doing.
“As Good As it Gets” is not “shit”, I didn’t see much that was brown on the screen, maybe you picked up a different copy of it?
“Spanglish” didn’t “suck” either.
I don’t mind people objecting to films, but perhaps you could give some respectable reasons for your disliking of a picture and not, as you’d say “shit” criticisms?
~ Sam
Well, with both “Spanglish” and “As Good as It Gets”, they’re too sappy for my taste. I’m not into sentimentality unless it really earns it.
With “As Good as It Gets”, I really disliked Nicholson and I felt he was playing an exaggeration of himself and not really acting. Plus, I didn’t buy the moment when he and the dog parted. Plus, I hate Helen Hunt. That bitch can’t act. How she won the Oscar is baffling. She is so bland in pretty much everything I’ve seen her in except for “Twister” which didn’t require any serious acting to do.
“Spanglish” was terrible because Tea Leoni overacted and overdid every scene. Paz Vega is a good actress but she was severely miscast. Some of the look of the film including a scene with Leone and Thomas Haden Church looked fake.
I’m sorry but I don’t like these films.
I rather liked “Pay it Forward” ~ Hunt was solid in it.
How did I know this film was worth skipping outright?
“Babelistic” is all that needs to be said for me to avoid this movie. I loved the casting/acting in Babel, but holy lord was that movie horribly put together.
It’s rather sad how much less Rudd was paid in comparison to the other three.
It’s always been that way for Rudd, weak agent or he just doesn’t care about the money…
Trackbacks