Featured Post

Letterboxd Reviews

So as you know, I stopped writing lengthy reviews on this site this year, keeping the blog as more of a film diary of sorts.  Lo and behold,...

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Movie Review - Love Happens (2009)

Starring Aaron Eckhart and Jennifer Aniston
Directed by Brandon Camp

When I saw the poster, I was wondering why Jennifer Aniston got second billing after Aaron Eckhart. Maybe it's just my celebrity crush on the gal, but I couldn't help but think that Aniston was much more of a "name" than Eckhart. After watching the movie, though, I understand that Aniston is really just window dressing -- there to look pretty and somehow motivate the main character Eckhart. About halfway through the movie, Aniston went missing for about twenty minutes and when she came back onscreen, I literally said, "Oh, Aniston's in this! I forgot."

Eckhart (who was so good and absolutely undeservedly overlooked because of Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight) is motivational speaker Burke who helps people cope with death, but, in true movie fashion, he is unable to deal with the pain he suffers due to his own wife's death a few years ago. He eventually meets Aniston's Eloise, a florist, and they eventually hit it off, with Eloise nudging Burke to face his own issues in order to better assist others in confronting theirs.

The problem here isn't in the actors because Aniston and Eckhart (along with Dan Fogler as Burke's right-hand man, Martin Sheen as Burke's dead wife's father, and Judy Greer as Eloise's assistant florist) are certainly serviceable and make the most of what they're given. However, what they're given is pretty dismal -- dialogue, while not silly, is just inconsequential. Entire scenes with Burke dealing with his followers could have been eliminated...and it felt like these scenes made up at least a third of the movie.

There's really not a whole lot here. The "love" that "happens" between Eckhart and Aniston was really nonexistent. Part of me actually interested in seeing this film because it appeared to be the first "adult" feeling film I've seen as a wide release in a while, but it's unfortunate that there wasn't really a whole lot here.

The RyMickey Rating: D+

9 comments:

  1. Let me go on record as saying I am one woman who H-A-T-E-S this sappy, crappy stuff. This is what the Lifetime network is for, not the theater.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The difference between Aaron Eckhart and Aniston is that one has a career on the rise, the other one will grab any role to make money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This movie was definately not a normal chick flick, toward the end I was wondering if they would actually end up together. I did think it was cute and am not surprised you didn't like it since there were a lot of extra crap. But you can't go wrong with martin sheen. he's the man.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sherri - It wasn't even that it was super-sappy...it's just that there wasn't much there...I would've taken the sap in this just to give it some oomph. It was actually pretty "unromantic".

    Amanda, you're right in that I wasn't sure what was going to happen in the end...but, then you think of the title, realize that it's "Love Happens" and, without a doubt, you know that "love" is going to "happen."

    And Justin, my love for Aniston will allow me to overlook your malicious comments about her...There's not many actresses I'd say that I'd see in anything, but I can't take my eyes off of her when she's onscreen for some reason...

    ReplyDelete
  5. It wasn't malicious, just that she is only known for Friends and it will stay that way. Oh. And as the love interest in X. X = the numerous mediocre to semi-good romantic comedies she's been in. I like her in basically everything she's in but she is entering the twilight of her career. At least it's not to the point where she shows up in a movie just for a 'lol, it's rachel but she's old now' moment.

    Eckhart on the other hand had basically 3rd or 4th billing in the 2nd highest grossing movie ever. And as you've said, can act. (and has the manliest jaw since Bruce Campbell)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Justin - while not providing judgement on this about-to-be-mentioned film, I'll maintain that, for a while, Aniston was known for her role in The Good Girl. Not a romantic comedy.

    ...just as Audrey Hepburn is really only remembered for Breakfast at Tiffany's (Sabrina is arguable for me, as I would have to make the assumption that the same people who would only know/remember Aniston for Friends would not likely be watching Sabrina) - but Hepburn was in other movies that weren't romantic comedies. Even into the twilight of her career. I'm not sure where I was planning on going with this, there was some sensical analogy there, even if only for a moment.... hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Justin - I know it wasn't really malicious...sarcasm sometimes doesn't translate...

    And, Anonymous...I didn't really love The Good Girl...but, once again, I remember liking Aniston in it.

    Time to go watch Friends...

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is it just me or is this the worst movie title they've ever come up with...

    ReplyDelete
  9. It's just so generic...and doesn't really make sense in the grand scheme of the movie...

    I personally think the upcoming "It's Complicated" and "Everybody's Fine" are two awful titles, too.

    ReplyDelete