Hide The Ball
The enthusiasm that MGM is showing for Robert Weide's How To Lose Friends and Alienate People (Friday, 10.3) is clearly not what it could be. A friend says he hasn't seen any TV ads, but the main indicator for me is that 42 West, the agency hired to screen HTLFAIP for MGM, has barely screened it. On top of which I never received an invite for last Monday afternoon's screening at 4 pm. And when I wrote asking why earlier today, it took them six or seven hours to reply.
There was one other L.A. screening two or three weeks ago, but this seems to be the way of the world these days. You need to chase publicists for invitations to screenings. You have to hound them, corner them and sweet-talk them into inviting you. Not each and every time but more and more often. Unmistakably. And it's not just me.
The reason 42 West hasn't shown How To Lose Friends, of course, is that it appears to be a problem movie, as in, like, way too coarse and aimed at the apes.
In Weide's defense, I'm told by a guy who knows him that he was pressured all through filming to dumb it down, and that he had to fight this pressure day after day, tooth and nail. If Todd McCarthy's 9.30 Variety review is an accurate indication of how the film plays, it seems that Weide lost the battle.
"'How to lose friends and alienate audiences' is the lesson taught by this cleverly titled but noxious British comedy about a Limey scribe trying to carve a notch for himself in the glam world of high-end New York publishing," McCarthy begins. "Despite being based on the popular 2001 memoir of former Vanity Fair contributing editor Toby Young, How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, features a protag so uncouth and inept it's impossible to believe he'd hold his job for more than a week.
"Producers may have been inspired by The Devil Wears Prada to think a male variation could cause B.O. lightning to strike twice, but it's not going to happen, even if Simon Pegg's presence rouses a certain interest, especially in the U.K.
"The diminutive, blond-tressed Pegg, who cut a comic bigscreen swath in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, is nothing short of malodorous as Sidney Young, a desperately striving, celebrity-chasing London journo whose embarrassing disruption of a BAFTA Awards party unaccountably earns him a job offer from Gotham-based Sharps magazine honcho Clayton Harding (a very long-haired Jeff Bridges).
"Turning up for work in a vulgar T-shirt, arrogantly considering his initial assignments beneath him and freely admitting he regards Con Air the greatest film of all time, Simon rubs everyone the wrong way; he manages to annoy Pat Kingsley-like PR maven Eleanor Johnson (Gillian Anderson), repulse rising editor Lawrence Maddox (Danny Huston) and accidentally kill the beloved Chihuahua of this year's hot young thing, Sophie Maes (Megan Fox).
"Perhaps scenarist Peter Straughan was entitled to some license to exaggerate, but he goes too far when, in a sudden spasm of sincerity, he audaciously tries to encourage a rooting interest in a romance between the terminally boorish Sidney and his lovely office supervisor Alison (Kirsten Dunst), despite her entirely justified initial distaste for him. The further this story strain is pursued, the more of a turn-off the whole enterprise becomes."
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 1, 2008 at 4:52 PM
comment #1
D.Z.
says ...
I wanted to see it, but the clips aren't encouraging me to do so. It looks like they're trying to sell it too much as a modern-day "A Fish Called Wanda", but it doesn't have the same bite.
Posted by D.Z.
at October 1, 2008 6:34 PM
comment #2
calraigh
says ...
Wells, '' Gillian Armstrong ''?! Variety has made this mistake twice before (I've noticed, as have other, unabashed Anderson fans) but reprinting the review verbatim and not picking up on this juvenile is a little, well, juvenile. No?
Gillian Anderson is her name and she's one of the only worthwhile things about this whole affair, despite only being on screen for about half a bloody hour, all told.Bridges and Danny Huston being the others. Dunst is the human equivalent of melamine and serves as a lesson to us all about how far you can get in his life just being in the right place, at the right time.
Plus, Pegg isn't funny in this and that's his schtick.
Weide better have learned his lesson after this.
Posted by calraigh
at October 1, 2008 6:59 PM
comment #3
calraigh
says ...
Juvenile error and this life.Sigh.
Posted by calraigh
at October 1, 2008 7:06 PM
comment #4
actionman
says ...
It does look terrible. I was working with Weide on another project while he was in the middle of this film and he relayed to me similar feelings. The movie is a mess, looks like shit, and will only be worth seeing for Megan Fox's hotness.
Posted by actionman
at October 1, 2008 7:27 PM
comment #5
actionman
says ...
And Wells, not that it's the end of the world, but you got the title wrong in your post...it is:
How to Lose Friends & Alienate People
Posted by actionman
at October 1, 2008 7:30 PM
comment #6
calraigh
says ...
Wow, I didn't even notice the title error! Not a Toby Young scale faux pas but nevertheless...
Posted by calraigh
at October 1, 2008 8:22 PM
comment #7
K. Bowen
says ...
Gillian Armstrong = Australian director
Gillian Anderson = X-Files star, Oscar snub for Terrence Davies' The House of Mirth, and The World Most Famous Underused Actress.
Seriously, Jeff, you should throw her name up on the Oscar Ballloon either for this of for her turn in The X-Files movie. For all that film's problems, her performance was one of the best female leads I've seen so far this year. Not that there's a lot of competition at this point.
Posted by K. Bowen
at October 1, 2008 8:56 PM
comment #8
K. Bowen
says ...
And yes, I am kidding about the balloon. But only somewhat.
Posted by K. Bowen
at October 1, 2008 9:10 PM
comment #9
calraigh
says ...
K. Bowen- I'm a huge fan of hers and watched the movie because I'd literally watch them shell peas for a couple hours, but please don't embarrass the actress or yourself, by suggesting she should be nominated for 2 wholly disappointing roles. I agree she's a criminally under-used actress but it's not like she's making a concerted effort to gun for leading lady status. It works both ways.
She's barely on screen for this film! Get a grip!
As regards the ''competition'', have you looked at the Oscar Balloon? Please compare and contrast and then get back to me. Pay particular notice to Scott-Thomas and Kate Beckinsale. I think Anderson is incredibly talented, underrated and fascinating to watch, but these are not Oscar ''worthy'' roles. By that, I mean what the Academy would define as worthy, a role of substance, insofar as the Oscars mean a goddamn thing anymore.
I'd love her to be recognized for her talent someday but for something of justifiable merit, not dross like this, or the sad, sad mess that was the X-Files movie. I hate that sentence and it breaks my 'Phile heart to say it but it's true.She was great in it, her performance was moving but it just didn't matter; nobody cared enough to notice.
Posted by calraigh
at October 1, 2008 9:30 PM
comment #10
K. Bowen
says ...
Well, while I'm at it, I'll embarrass Michael Phillips, then:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/x-files-believe-review-0725,0,5270785.story?track=rss
"Movie stardom isn't in the eye of the beholder, it's in the percentages demanded and received by the movie star. We're talking about a state of fiscal grace, not a state of glamor or mystique. By that measure Gillian Anderson is not a movie star. Yet she's world-famous as FBI agent Dana Scully. She's also a marvelous, coolly soulful actress (choice, for example, in a too-small role in "The Last King of Scotland"). Her range may not be limitless--she's best murmuring in close-up, whether dealing with medical issues or spiritual ones--but her dramatic instincts are very stealthy indeed.
Anderson almost makes the new "X-Files" film, subtitled "I Want to Believe," something to believe in."
And while I'm at it, I'll embarrass LIsa Schwarzbaum:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20230121,00.html
"Best in show is the divine Gillian Anderson as a powerful celebrity publicist, editing the image of her clients in much the same way this adaptation tames Young's much pricklier book."
Of the few reviews of this thing I've read so far, she's been singled out for praise along these lines in about half of them. Pretty darn good considering the relatively small size of the role.
No, I'm not serious about putting her in the Oscar Balloon, because, yes, I understand that it's totally unrealistic. No, I'm not saying that Phillips or Schwarzbaum would stick her on there, either. Yes, I am serious when I say it's one of the best lead performances from an actress so far this year, while recognizing that's not exactly a long list at this time - it's been a sparse year so far for lead female roles. Yes, I know that most of the best performances from actressses are still to come and will without any infinitessimal question overshadow her.
All I'm saying is what you seem to be saying - she's great in The X-Files, even if the film took a critical beating. (Although I can't tell, are you saying she's great or disappointing? I think you're saying great).
I'm just pointing out that the work has been very good. If I'm a little overenthusiastic - and I recognize that I am - that's fine by me.
Oh, and upon further inspection, it's not Jeff's error, is it? It's Variety's.
Posted by K. Bowen
at October 1, 2008 10:04 PM
comment #11
calraigh
says ...
It's unfortunate that you don't seem to comprehend what was an extremely straightforward comment. The embarrassment I suggested you should feel was in relation to singling out Anderson's performances as Oscar-worthy. Not for saying that Anderson's talent is worthy of praise.I'm not sure what the purpose of providing those particular links was, however. To prove Anderson has received good notices? This wasn't in dispute.
However you've just stated you weren't being serious, so we agree! I didn't say the film ''took a critical beating '' either; I appreciated her performance in what was a sub-standard film. It took a beating because it was warranted. I'm not sure how the sentence ''she was great in it '' can be misinterpreted.
Also-what further ''inspection'' was required in relation to my previous comments? As I stated, '' Variety has made this mistake twice before '' and the objective of my comment was to point out that Mr. Wells reprinted the error, verbatim. Precisely the kind of slip-up he is ordinarily quick to point out.
Posted by calraigh
at October 1, 2008 10:45 PM
comment #12
LexG
says ...
MEGAN FOX AND KIRSTEN DUNST OWN YOUR ASS.
TOTAL OWNAGE,
BOW to them. BOW. They are SUPERIOR and you are weak in their presence.
BE GOD.
Posted by LexG
at October 1, 2008 11:15 PM
comment #13
gruver1
says ...
Aaaaahhhhh!!!!!
Posted by gruver1
at October 2, 2008 12:14 AM
comment #14
LexG
says ...
I think just RECOGNIZED.
AWESOME. WELLS OWNS.
Posted by LexG
at October 2, 2008 12:22 AM
comment #15
kinks541
says ...
Forget all those other slips, because the real error is McCarthy's use of "lovely" as a descriptor of Kirsten Dunst.
Shudder. I'd sooner court a woman with a vagina dentada.
Posted by kinks541
at October 2, 2008 3:54 AM
comment #16
BurmaShave
says ...
Everyone knows that CON AIR is the second greatest film of all time, and that THE LAST BOY SCOUT is the first. Still, there are places where this opinion gets you in trouble?
Posted by BurmaShave
at October 2, 2008 6:52 AM
comment #17
MikeSchaeferSF
says ...
They're running TONS of TV spots on places like Comedy Central. And it does look fairly awful. Guess you can remove the screenplay from the Oscar Balloon.
Posted by MikeSchaeferSF
at October 2, 2008 7:51 AM
comment #18
actionman
says ...
Ebert gave it ***1/2
I love him but man does this movie look terrible...
Posted by actionman
at October 2, 2008 7:58 AM
comment #19
gruver1
says ...
[I wrote a little thing about Con Air that turned into seven or eight graphs, so I posted it on the front page instead.]
Posted by gruver1
at October 2, 2008 8:34 AM
comment #20
K. Bowen
says ...
That's a great post, Jeff. I do kinda like Gone in Sixty Seconds. Slick, sexy exploitation filmmaking. What's wrong with that?
Posted by K. Bowen
at October 2, 2008 8:54 AM
comment #21
rr3333
says ...
I remember when Weide was on an episode of 'Dog Whisperer' with his hot middle aged wife a while back.
Not sure why I brought this up except I remember his hot middle aged wife.
Weide's best stuff is Curb your Enthusiasm. Nothing quite like Larry & Co.
Posted by rr3333
at October 2, 2008 10:01 AM
comment #22
berg
says ...
bad film because of the talent that is squandered ... this movie has the unmitigated temerity to make a Big Lebowski reference ... the ultimate irony is that it was screened here in Space City over a month ago ...
Posted by berg
at October 2, 2008 10:11 AM
comment #23
Doug
says ...
Based on the trailer this one looks horrible. Can't believe Jeff has this one in his Oscar balloon for a screenplay Oscar but won't add "In Bruges."
Posted by Doug
at October 2, 2008 3:24 PM
comment #24
janee
says ...
Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of db2 high availability
Posted by janee
at May 18, 2011 4:35 AM
comment #25
flyboots
says ...
kind kind Coach Outlet Stores kind of lonely," Draper said.Draper and her husband called authorities at around 7:30 p.m., around the same time that Stephen's
called to report him missing.The boy made it nearly 30 feet down the chimney and got lodged in the couple's
Posted by flyboots
at March 31, 2012 10:17 PM