Walking Taco

Rating:

Animation Disney, Pixar, Up

Some bad movies are guilty pleasures, and some are just bad.  Demolition Man, unfortunately, lands with a resounding thud squarely in the latter category.  Despite so many elements that could have worked in its favor, the movie ultimately falls apart due in no small part to a woefully convoluted, meandering script combined with some incredibly bad acting. Now, I enjoy me some brainless action movies, but sometimes I come across one that is just too awful to recommend to anyone.  And even though I had high hopes for Demolition Man to be, at the very least, enjoyable or fun if only for its value as mindless entertainment, it turned out to be so terrible that only a good Deathstalkering could save it.  Oh Mike, Crow, Tom Servo…where art thou when I need thee?

The opening fifteen minutes of the movie are a paint-by-numbers of action movie cliches, but True Lies this is not.  Demolition Man actually seems to take itself seriously, even as Sylvester Stallone, playing John *cough* Spartan, rappels from a helicopter into a building where insane evil mastermind Simon Phoenix (Wesley Snipes) is holed up with a couple dozen hostages.  And like a checklist, the action movie cliches begin to pile up like the bodies of evil henchmen:  Spartan the loose cannon who doesn’t play by the rules, thinking Phoenix is bluffing about having hostages in the building, fights through hordes of expendable bad guys, meets and spars with Phoenix, accidentally starts the building on fire, and runs down a hallway while the whole place explodes around him.  Having taken Phoenix into custody, Spartan finds out that the hostages (why had Spartan kidnapped them?  What were his demands?  What was he trying to accomplish?  Such things matter not to director Marco Brambilla.) were in fact in the building and he now responsible for the death of over 30 innocent people.

John Spartan, the Demolition Man. Subtle this movie most certainly is not.

The only fitting punishment for Phoenix?  Freeze him!  That way he can be rehabilitated over the next 70 years by machines that say really nice things to frozen dudes for decades on end so they will mellow out and be able to re-enter society free from violent tendencies.  Conveniently, this is also the best way to deal with Spartan–the movie’s namesake–because, you know, his totally unorthodox methods of fighting crime get lots of stuff blowed up.  But gosh darn it, 30 years into Phoenix’s rehabilitation, something goes wrong and he is accidentally unfrozen!  He begins to wreak havock on Future Los Angeles, a place where violence has been virtually eliminated and the police, grown soft after not fighting crime for decades, have no idea how to deal with an Insane Criminal Mastermind.  The solution?  Thaw out John Spartan, of course!

The ridiculous plot only gets worse from there on out, as the movie wanders from being a paper-thin exploration of how people can become so dependent on technology that we risk losing what makes us human to an all-out ’splosion fest in various Future Locales.  In Future World, physical touch is considered taboo so people experience pleasure by wearing virtual-reality helmets.  Cursing is outlawed and individuals are fined “one credit” for each instance (an insufferable joke that overstays its welcome almost immediately).  But this James Cameron-esque attempt to add a bit of depth only results in a handful of awkward scenes that do not advance the plot and only serve to create an uneven pacing throughout the film.  Even the barest attempt at developing a relationship between Spartan and Lt. Lenina Huxley is forced and entirely unbelievable.

Somebody forgot to tell Wesley Snipes that yellow hair and blue overalls are the opposite of intimidating.

And so what we have left is a film that is one poorly-staged shootout after another between the well-nigh invincible John Spartan and his nemesis Simon Phoenix, the stark-raving-mad evil genius computer hacker (not kidding) with Kung Fu skillz.  And even this silly premise might not be such a bad movie were it properly directed, but every fight or shootout is so poorly blocked and mindlessly executed that it looks as though you’re watching a ninth-grade home video project.  After a shootout in a museum, Spartan is chasing Phoenix across a clearing when his quarry jumps down an embankment…and Spartan just stops running.  It’s as though writer Peter Lenkov didn’t know how to end the scene, so he just, well, ended it. Even worse, the climax has Stallone swaying slowly back and forth on a giant mechanical arm in the freezing chamber while Snipes laughs like an Evil Maniac and unloads clip after clip while hitting everything in the room but Stallone.  It’s madness, I tell you.  Madness.

In short?  You know a movie is terrible when the best thing about it is a Rob Schneider cameo.  And Demolition Man is that movie.

Rating:

Action Action, Demolition Man, james cameron, Sylvester Stallone

It was with some reluctance that I began watching Enterprise a year ago.  I had heard some good things about the show that attempted to carry on the great tradition of Star Trek, but some troubling anecdotes about strange plots, thinly-veiled social criticisms, and a feeling of incoherence overall.  But I figured it was worth a shot, and after finishing the series, I can say for sure that I am glad to have seen it all.  But the show, while ranging from not-too-shabby to downright lame, never hit the high water mark of syndicated science fiction set by its forbears, and in the end I was actually a little relieved that it was over.  Like a guest who has overstayed his welcome, it was time for the show to end.  But unlike such a guest, the show wasn’t about to go without a fight.  And fight it certainly did.

Between season 2 and 3, the writers threw caution to the wind and set about exploring an entirely new storyline that had its sights set on standing shoulder to shoulder with the best of Star Trek Epics.  Sadly, the Xindi conflict of Season 3 wore on ad infinitum, which was reflected in dismal TV ratings, and by the end I would say it’s a safe bet that everyone involved in the production of the show knew they had cashed in pretty much all their chips.  In short, the writing was on the wall:  Archer and his crew would get one more season before their warp drive would power down for good.

Whether that scenario is what went on prior to the creation of Season 4 or not, it’s safe to say that the show certainly went out with a bang–probably because there was nothing left to lose.  Season 4 was the best of the lot, and had some wonderfully high-concept episodes as well as several that at least attempted to delve into the real meat of Star Trek:  an exploration of the human condition.

Dr. Arik Soong, the central character in one of Enterprise's most interesting and well-executed storylines.

Shackled with none of the overarching “Stop the evil Xindi, I guess” modus operandi of Season 3, the crew of the Enterprise find themselves embroiled in conflicts large and small, laying some very interesting “prequel” groundwork for several episodes of the original Star Trek, and even giving a definitive answer to that age-old question of why Klingons don’t have wrinkles on their foreheads during the time of Captain Kirk.

Season 3 ended with a strange cliffhanger involving alien Nazis in an alternate-reality World War II on earth, the conclusion of which not only involved just a bit too much deus ex machina for my taste, but also put an end to the temporal cold war once and for all.  I actually thought the concept of interstellar conflicts that twisted the fabric of time was one of Enterprise’s more compelling subplots, but wrapping it up so early in the season meant it was no longer a crutch on which the writers could lean, and thus resulted in some far more interesting plots instead.

In fact, some of the best episodes of the short-lived series were in Season 4.  “Borderland,” “Station 12,” and “The Augments” focused on some very compelling issues regarding human genetic modification, and had a good mix of action, characterization, and moral philosophizing.  They also explored some of the history of Commander Data’s “father,” Dr. Noonian Singh, which I found to be not only interesting but very creative as well.  “Affliction” and “Divergence” brought back the Klingons, who had been in the first few episodes of the series but conspicuously absent for much of the subsequent episodes.  In fact, while these two episodes were both exciting and tense, they also showed a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor as they cleverly explained the lack of forehead ridges on Klingons during the time of Captain Kirk.

Throughout the season there was an increased emphasis on characters and relationships within the context of intergalactic conflicts, rather than the other way around, and while this not only lent an added emotional weight to the season overall, it also helped draw in viewers on an emotional level and connect with the Enterprise crew.  The relationship between T’Pol and Tucker took some interesting turns, though the T’Pol’s wedding to Koss in the early episode “Home” was a cheap attempt to add in some contrived relationship conflict, and I was glad to see this subplot wrapped up midway through the season.  We also get a bit of backstory on some others like Mayweather and Reed, but Hoshi, whose fairly useless character should have been written out years ago, remained sadly on the periphery for the entire season once again.

Despite their lofty ambitions, the "Mirror Universe" episodes didn't quite live up to their potential.

Much has been said about the lauded two-part “Mirror” episodes by other Trek commentators, but I found them to be distracting and rather pointless, mostly due to an entire lack of resolution.  While I understand that these two were never supposed to connect with the regular universe, and existed simply to give us a glimpse into the mirror universe for a little while, the rise of Empress Hoshi at the end of part 2 was a cheap way to end them.  It’s as if the writers had no intention of providing any sort of resolution for the myriad conflicts they had developed, and rather than even attempt any sort of resolution or denouement, just threw up their hands and called it quits so they could get on with the ship’s adventures in the regular universe.  Not cool, Mr. Sussman.

The final episode of the series did a fairly decent job of bringing things to a close, but it was more of a love letter to The Next Generation than a good conclusion to Enterprise.  But for a series that had consistently met average expectations for four years, I suppose it was about all I could have asked for.  In the end I would have liked to see the series and characters in the hands of a more capable writing crew, but at least it went out on a fairly good note overall.  Season 4 was the best of the bunch, even though the show still felt like the kid brother to its TOS, TNG, and DS9 brethren.  But even so, it was a decent run while it lasted.

And who knows?  With the popularity of the new Star Trek movie, we might not have seen the last of Star Trek on television…

Rating:

Star Trek: Enterprise archer, Enterprise, Eugenics, Mirror Universe

So why do a review of a movie that turns 50 this year? Because every so often there is a movie so great that it transcends time; a classic. None the less, due to the shear volume of material put out by Hollywood, great films can be forgotten just because they didn’t come out in the last year or two, or because audiences get comfortable with different styles. To put it simply, greatness should not be allowed to die.

The Ten Commandments was directed by savy Hollywood operator and professing Christian Cecil B. Demille. The fact that some of Demille’s movies were based on parts of the Bible automatically drew some criticism. One contemporary accused Demille of making “small-minded movies on a huge scale.” The “huge scale” part definitely applies to The Ten Commandments. Demille had to employ a cast of thousands of extras to recreate Pharo’s army and the mass Exodus of Hebrew slaves. The story spans 85 years and takes 3:39 to unfold, and every scene – nay, every line of dialogue – drives the story. And of course, then-revolutionary techniques were used to make the Red Sea sit up and beg, making movie history.

One of the temptations that Moses brushes off like dandruf. Heston must have taken a lot of cold showers.

But small minded? No one can take an honest look at this film and seriously hold that belief. This is one of the most compelling and thoughtful pictures ever made. The early story happens during a politically volatile period in the (speculative) history of ancient Egypt. Pharo Sethi I is nearing the end of his life and his throne must naturally pass to his biological heir, the ambitious Rameses II. Yul Brynner is absolutely brilliant in this role. You don’t like him and yet you’re compelled to respect him. Driven by his desire for the crown and for the beautiful Nefretiri (Anne Baxter), he puts force that few actors can into every scene he appears in. Sethi has nearly equal force, however, and superior power. Like most old men who’ve spent their lives being waited on, he has begun to worry about his legacy. He prefers his sister’s adopted son, Moses, who never stops building tributes to him, as a successor. Rameses begins hatching plots to undo this adopted brother.

Nefretiri, a hormonal adolescent girl with the power of a princess, plays her own game. Madly in love with Moses, she can’t bear the thought of being wed to Rameses. She constantly praises Moses and sweet talks Sethi. One scene between her and Rameses is one of Hollywood’s more memorable scenes. It’s a reminder that movies were much more powerful when the sexual tension was kept below the surface. Nefretiri is not passive, however, her passion drives her to extreme lengths, including murder. There are an assortment of other wily characters with their own motivations to add interest.

All of this is superbly done, and plenty for four stars. But so far, all this political maneuvering and forbidden romance could be in The Godfather, The Good Shepherd, or any number of intrigue movies. What makes The Ten Commandments different? The protagonist. Moses never criticizes the other characters; he simply passes through the politics and back-stabbing as if he doesn’t notice it.

Prophet, priests, and king.

Differences between Moses and the others begin to show right after Nefretiri has killed her hand maiden. Moses is knocking at her door. After a minute of romance, Moses learns that she has killed Memnet. He insists on knowing why, and drags it out of her that Memnet told her about his Hebrew heritage (unknown to him). She spouts typical Hollywood rhetoric, e.g., “I love you, that’s the only truth I know.” His reply is “love cannot drown truth.” Moses is favored above everyone else in Egypt, and its throne has now been promised to him. He has every comfort he could want and a beautiful woman madly in love with him. However, the revelation drives him to uncover his past, and he actually leaves the palace to work in the brick pits. His mother and Nefretiri urge him to stay, telling him that justice and truth are better served from a throne. This is just one age-old struggle the movie addresses; shouldn’t righteous men seek out power for the benefit of all? – and yet power so often rules the one who has it and makes him more wicked than any tyrant he replaced.

After Moses is arrested, Sethi asks him “Why are you forcing me to destroy you?” Moses replies “The evil that men should turn their brothers into beasts of burden … if there is a god, he did not mean this to be so.” Moses bears the fall from next pharo to condemned prisoner with remarkable grace, out of nothing more than an un-named conviction of what is right. How many of us have that kind of strength?

We are, of course, eventually directed to the “Power that has shaped Moses’ way,” as he puts it. The Ten Commandments does a number of things that contemporary audiences will be uncomfortable with, including overt references to Yaweh, the God of Abraham, as opposed to vague references to “God.” It’s unlikely DeMille would have taken the same criticism if the film wasn’t such an uncompromising statement of Biblical truth.

Still looks real.

If you haven’t seen The Ten Commandments for a few years, you owe it to yourself to at least rent a copy. If you’ve only watched it on TV, there is a part that is usually cut. No matter how many times I watch The Ten Commandments (don’t worry, I try to stay busy while I watch it), I can never bring myself to skip past it. In an unusual (possibly unique) move, DeMille addresses the audience face to face before the film starts. DeMille’s passion is infectious, and he brings the whole purpose of the movie into focus. The theme of The Ten Commandments, DeMille emphatically states, is “whether men are to be ruled by God’s Law, or by the whim of a dictator like Rameses. Are men the property of the state, or are they free souls under God? This same battle continues throughout the world today.” How true. We need only look at the history of the United States to see that, as our government and culture have progressively rejected the Law of God, we have seen not freedom, but an explosion of government invasion of everyone’s lives.

Everyone remembers the Red Sea scene from this film, but few remember the true climax of the story, after Moses has received the Commandments from Yahweh. He goes back down the mountain to find the people worshiping the Calf and reveling in depravity. Dathan (Edward G. Robinson), a rabble-rouser, declares “We’re gathered against you Moses. We’re free!” Moses shouts “There is no freedom without the law!” What more is there to say? I guess there’s still the Gospel. But DeMille tried to force that into the 1920s version of The Ten Commandments, and it ruined it. One movie can only do so much. But this one does all that one can – and then some. The Book isn’t bad either.

Drama Baxter, Bible, Brynner, commandments, DeMille, Derek, egypt, epic, freedom, god, hebrews, Heston, history, jews, law, Price, Robinson, slavery, slaves

What a wonder it is to find Sandra Bullock having the two biggest movies of her career (one sure to get her an Oscar nomination) and the most critically reviled film of her career all in the same year.  After the enormous financial success of this summer’s rom-com “The Proposal” and the stink that “All About Steve” left behind, Bullock bounces back with the most successful sports film of all time.  Does it deserve such a title?  Well I would look to “The Natural,” “The Wrestler,” “Rocky,” “Miracle,” “Raging Bull” and several others (classic and more recent) ahead of “Blind Side,” but I can’t deny its wide appeal.

This movie has all the makings of a major hit—taking a proven formula to tell the story of homeless African-American Michael Oher, taken in by the upscale white conservative Touhy family (Sandra Bullock) while attending a Christian prep school.  The family gives Michael a room and a bed, eventually adopts him and helps him to earn solid enough grades to play high school football and earn a college scholarship–which ultimately sends him to NFL stardom later on.

When a flick is as likable and sugary as this, it’s hard to knock it.  Even though every frame feels done before, the film nevertheless engages with its Capra-esque tone and feel.  The inspirational, feel-good factor reaches to the sky here (especially that it’s based on a true story).  Sandra Bullock takes on a driven, strong-willed maternal figure that is likely to land her the big golden statue. Michael (newcomer Quinton Aaron), the underdog hero of the film, is a gentle giant of few words (is there any other kind?) with a giving spirit underneath a blanket of silence.  The Touhy family brings him out of his shell to confront the violence and unfortunate environment he grew up in.  Between Bullock and Aaron, these two actors create an unstoppable force of melodrama that captivates the audience whether or not you want to surrender to it. Bullock holds our attention—giving us the best kind of mom—the kind you don’t want to mess with, a performance that commands the screen. Quinton Aaron takes our hearts with puppy-dog eyes and restraint that instantly generates that lump in the throat,  the kind that carries us through this formal studio manufacturing of a movie.  We know exactly where “The Blind Side” is headed (whether you know the source material or not) and we gladly go along with it anyway.  Eventually it becomes apparent that the film has very little to do with football or sports in general.  It’s a film about motherhood, about family, and about hope.  It’s hard to resist.

GRADE: B

Drama, Sports John Lee Hancock, Kathy Bates, Quinton Aaron, Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw

Here is the toughest movie to sit through all year, and oddly enough it’s not the lowest of the Hollywood dreck, it’s a film depicting some of the harshest human reality.  Lee Daniels directs “Precious: Based on a Novel By Sapphire.”  Forget the ridiculous subtitle, this is a movie meant as a message for victims of abuse (based on a novel I haven’t read), not for gloss, glamor or any of the numerous awards attention its landed.

Newcomer Gabourey Sidibe plays Precious, an overweight, illiterate sixteen year-old African-American middle schooler who is pregnant with her second child of her own father’s after being raped.  She sits in class without saying a word or even looking others in the eye.  She goes home to a rundown apartment in Harlem only to endure the physical and mental abuse of her bitter and angry mother (Mo’Nique) who blames her for stealing away her boyfriend.  Precious is convinced that she is wasted space–stupid, ugly, and will never find anyone that cares for her.  That is until she is referred to a special school where a teacher (Paula Patton) instructs her how to read and write, and strives to prove to her that she is valuable.

While it may sound like the Lifetime movie of the week, these dramas rarely strive for honesty like “Precious” does.  This movie depicts violence, rape, and abuse as real  and as confusing as it is to our main character.  Much of this is hard to watch, as it should be.  But Lee Daniels isn’t sugarcoating anything, and he’s also not exploiting his topic.  The four actresses in this movie help keep things in check.  Sidbe is heartbreaking.  Mo’Nique is completely absorbed in her ruthless character.  Paula Patton holds her own in the cliche ‘inspirational teacher’ role, Ms. Rain, a role that lends itself more gravity than I would have anticipated.  Perhaps the oddest choice among the four is Mariah Carey (in a role you absolutely won’t recognize her in, because I sure didn’t).  She plays a social worker having nearly as much invested in Precious as Ms. Rain.  Together these actresses are an unstoppable force in a film only hindered by music video type sequences that Precious envisions to take herself out of her tormented life.  Sadly, they take the audience out of the drama once in a while.  But otherwise, this movie sticks to its guns.  “Precious” looks for the very small twinkle of light at the end of a very dark tunnel, and eventually it gets there, but it’s a rough road.

GRADE: B+

Drama Gabourey Sidibe, Lee Daniels, Mariah Carey, Mo'Nique, Paula Patton

Jim Sheridan (My Left Foot, In America) directs one of the finest acting ensembles of the year in “Brothers,” an isolating and tense drama featuring a standout performance from Tobey Maguire.

Maguire plays Sam Cahill, a family man marine called back into combat shortly after his brother, Tommy (Jake Gyllenhaal), returns home on parole.  Natalie Portman plays Grace, Sam’s wife.  During a helicopter mission in Afghanistan, Sam’s chopper is shot down, and he and another private are taken as POWs.  The two are assumed dead.  Grace, her two daughters and the rest of the family quickly hear of this news.  Tommy takes it upon himself to turn his life around and be there for Grace and the kids.

“Brothers” actually surprised me with how low-key the movie plays out (for the most part).  The scenes with Maguire and the torture he endures while taken hostage by the enemy are less intense and sadistic than I was anticipating.  Not to say they aren’t impacting and intense, but Sheridan often cuts away from some of the more disturbing shots.  The film’s greatest strength and source of intensity comes from its many talented actors.   The young actresses that play the daughters are some of the best child actors I’ve witnessed.  10-year-old Bailee Madison, especially, has some remarkable delivery here.  Among the adult actors, Jake Gyllenhaal has a fine understated performance as the distant drunk brother who slowly turns himself into a family man.  Sam Shepherd makes the most of his cliched angry Vietnam vet father spouting off the infamous “the wrong kid died” anger towards Tommy.  Natalie Portman should earn some attention as the confused grieving wife, who in some respects, takes the reigns of the movie.

But above all, perhaps the biggest surprise is Tobey Maguire, showing a side of his acting abilities we haven’t yet seen as we’ve become accustomed to “Spider-Man” and “Seabiscuit.”  Upon his character’s return home following his mind-altering abuse and captivity, Maguire sends “Brothers” soaring with a few select, memorable scenes that ratchet up the tension immensely.  Whether his performance qualifies him for a leading actor role (the Golden Globes thought so) or a supporting actor, it’s disappointing that so many critics’ circles and reviewers are dismissing his performance.  I’ve read phrases like “you either buy his performance or you don’t,” and I can say that I did.  Maguire is finely tuned here, showcasing the dark side of his capabilities.

Overall, “Brothers” often times feels like talented actors and a handful of tense scenes piled on an average “been there, done that” story mixed in with a big anti-war message.  We’ve seen many ‘coming home’ films about the impact of combat and the destructive power it has on its soldiers.  Some of these movies hit (The Hurt Locker, Born on the 4th of July), some miss (Stop Loss), and this one definitely works very well when it works very well.  If for no other reason, the film should be seen for Maguire’s performance and those moments here that are effective.  Otherwise, I found a lot of this to be standard procedure, even if it’s done adequately by a talented cast.

GRADE: B

Drama, War Jake Gyllenhaal, Jim Sheridan, Natalie Portman, Sam Shepherd, Tobey Maguire

You will not enjoy The Ugly Truth. At least, for your sake, I hope you don’t. When I saw it, I was repeatedly asking myself two questions: One: why am I watching this? And two: do members of our culture really have so little hope that they can’t aspire to anything more than this?

The Ugly Truth might be interpreted by some as a “chick flick,” however it attempts to bring the male perspective into the ugly picture it draws of relationships. I emphasize “attempts.”

At the beginning, we meet Abby Richter (Katherine Heigl) a high-power TV producer who is successful in all things except love. By far the most entertaining scene is one of the first, in which she goes to a restaurant and meets (for the first time) a bachelor that she has been paired with by a computer dating service. Their conversation goes something like this:

She (opening black leather folder): I was so excited to meet you, because your profile had nine out of the ten characteristics on my checklist.

He: You brought my profile to our date??

She (turning pages): Oh, my assistant put it in my bag. She doesn’t like me to be caught unprepared – not that I am ever not prepared. Kudos on your comprehensive car insurance plan, by the way.

He: That wasn’t in my profile.

She: No, but it was in your background check.

He: Uh …

She (after a pause): Oh, don’t worry, I brought a list of conversation topics in case this happened.

He (rubbing his face): So, I take it this has happened before…

Director Robert Luketic figures we can probably guess how the rest of the date goes, and cuts to a scene of Abby returning home, dejected. She starts channel surfing and comes across Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler), a brash, shallow, foul-mouthed guy in tight pants doing his call-in show called “The Ugly Truth.” Chadway is throwing relationship books into a barrel and setting them on fire like the refuse they are.

He declares “Men are simple! You want a relationship, ladies, here’s how. It’s called a Stairmaster …” Scrub out a lot of profanity and stomach-churning innuendo, and Mike is essentially saying women need to get an ideal body, put on a revealing outfit, and then men will want to have sex with them. Only then is a relationship (albeit a fairly one-sided one) possible. Incensed, Abby calls him and demands “Do you really expect us to believe men are incapable of feeling love, and are all as perverse as you?” He asks if she knows a man who is not. Abby takes a breath and begins describing the ideal man who lives in her mind. He replies:

“Oh, I get it, you’re a lesbian.”

“What??”

“You must be; you just described the perfect woman!”

The next day, Abby goes to work and finds out, to her horror, that her boss thinks their programming has gotten boring, and has hired Mike to spice it up. Mike’s first appearance on Abby’s station is to be with unhappily married anchors Georgia (Cheryl Hines) and Larry (John Michael Higgins), who are more-or-less Regis and Kathy Lee. Abby coaches the two of them before the show to humiliate him on the air.

Mike and Abby have a stare-down over makeup.

However, once on the air, Mike gets them to admit to all of their marital problems, finally getting Larry to acknowledge that he is so embarrassed by the fact that Georgia makes more money than he does, that he has been impotent for several months. After some coaching by Mike, Larry demands, “Georgia, let me be a man!” He suddenly attacks her with passionate kisses and then throws her over his shoulder and carries her off the set. Everyone in the control room is cheering, Mike’s popularity is now assured, and Abby is next seen curled up on the floor of the closet in her office.

In between all of this, Abby meets her neighbor, Collin (Eric Winter). Collin is an orthopedic surgeon who has somehow found time to maintain the body of a professional weight lifter. He loves poetry, cooking, and giving foot massages (when I saw this, I rolled my eyes hard enough to pull a muscle). Hoping to take Mike down a peg, Abby announces to him that she has actually met the perfect man she has been dreaming of. Mike asks “has he asked you out yet?” Abby immediately marches to her phone, and calls Collin to ask him out. When Collin hesitates, Mike hangs up Abby’s phone with the comment “He was blowing you off.” Abby is angry, but it gets her attention when Collin calls back, as Mike predicted. Mike instructs “Now make him suffer. Put him on hold.” Once again, Collin reacts as Mike predicts. Mike and Abby make a deal that if she does as Mike says and she lands Collin, she will cooperate with his efforts at the network. If not, he’ll quit.

The rest of the movie is scenes of Mike giving Abby tips on seductive dress, flirting and teasing. None of it is funny, however, and a lot of it is disgusting. Every exchange follows this pattern:

He: We need to change your hair/clothing/eye color/butt.

She (indignant): What is wrong with it?

He: It makes you look sensible/professional/mature.

She: What is wrong with sensible/professional/mature?

He: Nothing, except no-one-wants-to-f.ck-it.

Eventually, Abby does land Collin. But by this point – you guessed it – Mike has fallen for her. We also learn a little more about Mike’s background; how he has been burned by a lot of girls that didn’t really like him, and made him what he is today. He eventually goes on a rant about how women don’t care about you, they only care about their checklist. All of this could have been fairly interesting if Luketic had taken the time to really get us inside the characters heads, but he seems to prefer to spend the time on shock value. By the end of act one, I was looking at my watch.

Mike, after wrestling with twins in jello. Don't worry; he only slept with the one that could read.

The script for this film was written by three women, and Mike Chadway seems to be their attempt to incorporate the male perspective on relationships. Mike is a tad likable for a minute here and there just because he’s not ashamed of being a guy. But in the end, what his lines amount to is a restatement of the same things that bitter, sexually frustrated women say about men. In other words, Mike has only found a more phallocentric way of saying “men are pigs.”

For example, in one scene where he coaches Abby, he tells her “Never criticize. For men, self improvement ends with toilet training.” Doubtless a lot of women feel this way. It is nonsense, however. Men have plenty of interest in self improvement. The problem is women tend to think that they can mold a man into who they think he should be through nagging and criticizing. It doesn’t work on them, so I don’t know why they think it will work on us.

The worst thing about The Ugly Truth isn’t the gross dialogue or the choppy editing. It’s the utter sadness I felt for anyone who could actually connect with this movie. As I sat watching it with my beautiful wife curled up next to me, I wondered what it would be like to have to believe that there is no hope of anything better than the occasional cheap thrill in relationships.

Because that’s what the writers seem to believe. Neither Abby nor Mike ever really grow or learn anything; they just inexplicably fall in love with each other on a hot air balloon. Cut to the final scene of the two of them in bed. There was actually another ending filmed that involves the two of them getting married. Mike gives a speech in which he says “It’s true that every woman has a checklist, but occasionally a regular guy like me can sneak onto that checklist by using good old fashion true love.” They could have at least partially redeemed the movie if they had used this ending. Sure, the theatrical ending fits better with the spirit of the movie, but why would you want to do that?

So I hope you’re as repulsed by The Ugly Truth as I am. If nothing else, watching it made me appreciate my love-filled and passionate marriage. Which brings me back to the question: why was I even watching that tripe? The reason was, she asked me to watch it with her, and I knew it would make her happy if I did. Yeah. I’m a stud.

Comedy, Romance butler, heigl, inuendo, luketic, relationships, Romance, sex, tv, ugly truth