Nicole Kidman was fine as Samantha. It’s a poorly written character, without the wit and cleverness of the original. She’s oddly naïve, very superficial and there’s just not that much to her. She looks good, and has the right nose. Friends and family are just filler, do little to advance the plot so there’s not much to say about them really. Michael Caine was Michael Caine. There’s this whole Shirley MacLaine as Endora subplot that goes absolutely nowhere so I’m not going to bother.
Most of my wrath is for Will Ferrell, in a form of a memo to the producers of Hollywood.
Dear “Gentlemen,”
Will Ferrell is NOT romantic leading man material. He is not charming, smart, attractive or sexy. In any way. He is at most mildly amusing. In quirky little parodies like Anchorman, he can get away with getting the girl because he has that whole “star of the TV” mojo on his side. And it’s a parody, a send-up, a satire; not a representation of “reality.” But even in fluffy "Hollywood reality" movies like this, he doesn’t cut it. Sorry.
And you have to get over yourselves and accept that You, despite recently acquired power, success and money, You are still unattractive geeks and jerks that DON’T always get the “it” girl. So quit trying to convince us that women must settle for these self-involved, smarmy assholes.
Sincerely,
Women who refused to be brainwashed.
PS. To the ladies Ephron, while we know that you can’t put Tom Hanks in every movie you do, surely you can find another attractive man with talent, charm and wit to cast. Please. Look. Give us hope that the pickings are not that slim.
Don’t get me wrong. Will is talented, clever and has good comedic timing, and can be very entertaining in the right roles. But he just lacks the dreamy movie star looks for a romantic lead such as this, especially when cast opposite Nicole Kidman. And he’s one of several such actors that manage to snag “leading man” film careers for no reason. (Another is Jack Black–funny guy at times, not attractive to my eyes. Ever.)
It’s not that I’m demanding all movies have really good-looking, super sexy leading men like Brad Pitt or Colin Farrell. It’s just the double standard. Heather Burns costars in this as Nicole’s (implicitly) less attractive friend. But she’s a very versatile, funny actress (Miss Congeniality, You’ve Got Mail) and a lovely woman. But I doubt she’ll ever get to leading lady stature in Hollywood, and will be stuck being dolled “down” to play dowdier sister/friend roles.
I know I’m focusing on the superficial and that’s horrible. (It's such a lame movie with too few laughs, not worth the time.) And of course beautiful girls end up with the regular guys all the time. But it’s the fact that the opposite never happens in film, and every female sidekick, friend or “ugly” sibling is still better looking that some of the allegedly handsome, worth-all-the-trouble leading men. And don’t say The Truth About Cats and Dogs because a) Janeane Garofalo is more attractive than she’s given credit and b) as dressed and styled in that movie, Ben Chaplin was not all that (I don’t think he’s all that good looking period, but I’ll allow that others might) and c) I didn't think it was all that good a movie.
And less than attractive men with average talent can have long careers in Hollywood, as either leads like Will Ferrell, or in supporting roles like Steve Buscemi. But you’d struggle to quickly find any less than attractive leading ladies. I mean Julia Roberts played the Ugly Duckling sister turned swan (thanks to starvation) opposite Catherine Zeta-Jones in America’s Sweethearts. Julia freaking Roberts, she of countless "most beautiful" covers. The men in the movie: John Cusack, whom I adore but isn’t “oh my God” hot these days, and Hank Azaria. Case. Rested.
Note: My rant here is also inspired by the fact that, on the way into the theater, I walked by a poster for Deuce Bigalow 2 with the large picture of the horrible Rob Schneider on it. (Bring me the head of whoever gave him a SAG card.)
Smells like: a crappy movie remake.