"Alex and Emma" has nifty opening credits, done in a kind of 1920's art-deco style that mirrored the 1920's story within a story. Unfortunately, it was all downhill from there. This isn't a bad or reprehensible movie, just a dull, uninspired one.
What went wrong? That's what I kept asking myself all the time I was watching it. Rob Reiner is (or was) a fine director; after all, he made "When Harry Met Sally," the gold standard for romantic comedies. The idea had some promise: a writer's work reflects and is reflected by his real life and love. Usually I really love this type of literary stuff. So why???
Partly the fault lies with the script. Reiner seems to have literally thrown Jeremy Leven's first rough draft up on the screen. The script is so poorly thought out even in its basics that you can't believe any thought was devoted to it.
For instance, if you were a Cuban thug and your only way of getting the money a guy owes your Mafia boss is to make sure your victim gets an advan ce for his book, would the first thing you do really be to destroy the computer he's writing it on? Evidently Cuban thugs aren't very bright (at least not in this movie). Alex's need for a stenographer is unbelievable too. He couldn't ask his editor for the loan of just a few dollars to rent a laptop or at least a typewriter? (Maybe they should have had the thugs break his arm, so he would have to hire a stenographer). And why lie to her right off the bat for no reason -- no reason, that is, except that in a romantic comedy, the guy always lies to the girl? Again, Adam, the lead in the novel that Alex is writing is supposed to be going on vacation to write the great American novel, but we never hear of him writing a word once he gets there.
The general lack of imagination extends to the supposed comic bits, such as Emma being the au pairs of different nationalities, but almost nothing was done with the idea except to have her speak in funny accents for a few seconds for each one.
The flat, uninteresting characterizations are another problem. The ones in the 1920's story are, like the art deco credits, quite literally cartoons. The story within the story, as well as the writer-falls-in-love-with-stenographer idea, was taken from Dostoevsky's "The Gambler," but something sure as heck got lost in translation. Sophie Marceau is wasted in her role.
Alex and Emma themselves are no better. They are tenth-generation copies of the most stereotypical romantic comedy hero and heroine. Alex is your average nice guy, clueless in the generic way about women; Emma is the combination of anal-retentive annoyance and adorable ditz patented by Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally." (Her character is also astonishingly uninformed about the purpose and nature of literature, probably so Alex can explain it to the audience; this doesn't help).
I guess Reiner knows that this has worked before. Maybe that's the problem. Couldn't Alex, as a modern writer, have more edge? A little beard stubble is not enough. And a woman who wants to criticize a man's approach to romance, writing a sex scene, etc., could do much better than Emma does (though Adam's idea of a sex scene for his novel is one of the only vaguely witty bits in the film).
No matter how good the performances were, they couldn't save this movie. Luke Wilson is one of the most uncharismatic actors I know, and he seems barely able to move his body (though he at times has a nice energy with the lines and good comic timing). Kate Hudson at times is radiant, and is perhaps the thing most worth watching in this mess. She tosses off her accents with aplomb too.
But why can't there be a little re-thinking of the romantic comedy? It's getting a real black eye and a bad name it doesn't really deserve, as so many snide comments by guys on this site prove.
And for you guys on imdb who snicker at the very idea of "chick flicks" -- just go watch another movie based on a COMIC BOOK, OK?
What went wrong? That's what I kept asking myself all the time I was watching it. Rob Reiner is (or was) a fine director; after all, he made "When Harry Met Sally," the gold standard for romantic comedies. The idea had some promise: a writer's work reflects and is reflected by his real life and love. Usually I really love this type of literary stuff. So why???
Partly the fault lies with the script. Reiner seems to have literally thrown Jeremy Leven's first rough draft up on the screen. The script is so poorly thought out even in its basics that you can't believe any thought was devoted to it.
For instance, if you were a Cuban thug and your only way of getting the money a guy owes your Mafia boss is to make sure your victim gets an advan ce for his book, would the first thing you do really be to destroy the computer he's writing it on? Evidently Cuban thugs aren't very bright (at least not in this movie). Alex's need for a stenographer is unbelievable too. He couldn't ask his editor for the loan of just a few dollars to rent a laptop or at least a typewriter? (Maybe they should have had the thugs break his arm, so he would have to hire a stenographer). And why lie to her right off the bat for no reason -- no reason, that is, except that in a romantic comedy, the guy always lies to the girl? Again, Adam, the lead in the novel that Alex is writing is supposed to be going on vacation to write the great American novel, but we never hear of him writing a word once he gets there.
The general lack of imagination extends to the supposed comic bits, such as Emma being the au pairs of different nationalities, but almost nothing was done with the idea except to have her speak in funny accents for a few seconds for each one.
The flat, uninteresting characterizations are another problem. The ones in the 1920's story are, like the art deco credits, quite literally cartoons. The story within the story, as well as the writer-falls-in-love-with-stenographer idea, was taken from Dostoevsky's "The Gambler," but something sure as heck got lost in translation. Sophie Marceau is wasted in her role.
Alex and Emma themselves are no better. They are tenth-generation copies of the most stereotypical romantic comedy hero and heroine. Alex is your average nice guy, clueless in the generic way about women; Emma is the combination of anal-retentive annoyance and adorable ditz patented by Meg Ryan in "When Harry met Sally." (Her character is also astonishingly uninformed about the purpose and nature of literature, probably so Alex can explain it to the audience; this doesn't help).
I guess Reiner knows that this has worked before. Maybe that's the problem. Couldn't Alex, as a modern writer, have more edge? A little beard stubble is not enough. And a woman who wants to criticize a man's approach to romance, writing a sex scene, etc., could do much better than Emma does (though Adam's idea of a sex scene for his novel is one of the only vaguely witty bits in the film).
No matter how good the performances were, they couldn't save this movie. Luke Wilson is one of the most uncharismatic actors I know, and he seems barely able to move his body (though he at times has a nice energy with the lines and good comic timing). Kate Hudson at times is radiant, and is perhaps the thing most worth watching in this mess. She tosses off her accents with aplomb too.
But why can't there be a little re-thinking of the romantic comedy? It's getting a real black eye and a bad name it doesn't really deserve, as so many snide comments by guys on this site prove.
And for you guys on imdb who snicker at the very idea of "chick flicks" -- just go watch another movie based on a COMIC BOOK, OK?